An internal "audit" sound like the best (and easiest) way. It should of course be done by a native speaking person (which rules me out), should I make a bugzilla issue or is there another task list you could put it on ?
This person should also check the letter accellerators (Ca~ncel) I have a very strong suspicion that they are not always identical. rgds Jan I. On 17 October 2012 16:12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks > > > > I did not see that file, that is what I want to make available for each > > language and in .po (or .xliff) format so it can be used in the editors. > > > > Talking about en-US I have a couple of questions (which you may have > > discussed in the past) > > > > 1) there are no translation to US, meaning that they are stuck with the > en > > version (color = colour), is that design or just so happens ? > > 2) I am used to an en translation as well. Because developers are highly > > motivated but not necessarily brilliant at end-user language) > > We have a en_UK translation. But no special en_US translation. We've > been using the base strings as essentially the generic English > version. Any discrepancies are unintentional. The initial strings > are written by programmers, and most are not native English speakers. > It is perhaps worth a review of these strings for internal consistency > as well as spell checking. > > > today reporting a message bug in EN leads to a code change, and in all > > other languages (incl. e.g. en-xx) it is a language issue, that seems > > overcomplicated. > > > > When we change the workflow it would be easy to add en and us as > translated > > languages, and in first version they are simply copies of the source. > > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > On 17 October 2012 14:22, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also > >> combining > >> > all the notes on open issues I could find. > >> > > >> > Please have a look at: > >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf > >> > > >> > and > >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO > >> > > >> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will > >> make > >> > a design document for a changed workflow. > >> > > >> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. > These > >> > comments will be worked into the document. > >> > > >> > >> You mention the lack of a glossary as an issue, since without one it > >> is hard to be consistent in terminology. This is true even in > >> English, with multiple developers. > >> > >> I don't know if you saw this file, but this claims to be a glossary > >> for OpenOffice UI terms: > >> > >> > http://l10n.openoffice.org/localization/OpenOffice.org_en-US_Glossary.csv > >> > >> > >> Is this useful at all? > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> > >> > have a nice day. > >> > jan I > >> >
