On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >> Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen: >>> I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I >>> believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache >>> project). >>> >>> never mind. >>> >>> Would it be to our advantage if we offered third party developers >>> (that is >>> how I see extension developers) the possibility to register a language >>> file >>> and get it translated as part of the language packs ? >> >> Of course it would be to our advantage; or let's say for the project and >> software. A lot of extensions would be available in many languages. >> >> However, I don't know where we should draw the line to set a limit. When >> we select here and there some extensions, then the other developers will >> ask why not their extensions. > > It's quite simple I would say, if people want develop extensions under > ALv2 and want to contribute the code to the project. We can easy create > a special section in our repo where we can host them. > > But this means they have to be handled in the same way as all other > stuff here. Means a new release have to be voted... >
+1 I think the important thing is this: We don't just want code. We want communities. So if an extension author thinks that their extension is generally useful and he/she wants to join the AOO community and work on the extension here, and allow others to work on it as well, then this is good. We can have a set of "standard extensions". >> >> And IMHO it's not possible to translate all strings for all extensions. >> >> But maybe others here have a great idea? > > we can't probably provide it and I think we have to do enough ;-). But I > can think of an alternative service hosted somewhere else. > > Juergen > >> >>> Or should we just say extension developers does not concern us (and help >>> AOO get more used) so we just look the other way ? >>> >>> Maybe the right way is somewhere in the middle. >> >> Yeah, maybe. ;-) >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>> On 27 October 2012 00:58, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 10/27/2012 12:36 AM, schrieb jan iversen: >>>> >>>> While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I found a slight >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend our UI. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes it on >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**extensions/<http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/>how >>>>> does that get integrated into the >>>>> translation process ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Simply, not at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> As far as I can see the sources are not integrated into our "build >>>> --all >>>>> --with-lang". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. >>>> >>>> >>>> If I am right that they are not part of the general translation, >>>> then is >>>>> that per design so or should it be different ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this is by design. >>>> >>>> Extensions are offered to extent your AOO install at any point of time. >>>> These are developed by people that do not have to belong to our project >>>> (when we put aside some exceptions). They can act independently. And >>>> therefore they are allowed to (or have to ;-) ) do all on their own; >>>> incl. >>>> translation. >>>> >>>> That applies for all extensions and templates available on: >>>> >>>> - >>>> http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org<http://extensions.services.openoffice.org> >>>> >>>> - >>>> http://templates.services.**openoffice.org<http://templates.services.openoffice.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I might be following a wrong track here, but please forgive me for >>>> trying >>>>> to make the l10n process as complete as I can. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Don't panic. That's a great goal and everybody is thankful to you for >>>> doing this task. >>>> >>>> Marcus >
