Quoting Pierre-Antoine [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been
suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting
gnucash-help to gnome-doc-utils [1].
Without having looked too much into g-d-u details I'd *strongly* adverse
moving
Pierre-Antoine Lacaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been
suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting
gnucash-help to gnome-doc-utils [1]. g-d-u is supposedly the preferred
way for documentation handling, and make
Hi,
I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been
suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting
gnucash-help to gnome-doc-utils [1]. g-d-u is supposedly the preferred
way for documentation handling, and make use of po files.
I more or less ported it
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Josh Sled:
Pierre-Antoine Lacaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been
suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting
gnucash-help to gnome-doc-utils [1]. g-d-u is supposedly
Christian Stimming a écrit :
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Josh Sled:
Pierre-Antoine Lacaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been
suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting
gnucash-help to
As a GNOME translator, I can say translating documentation with PO
files is _much_ better than editing XML files.
I agree PO files are much more handy when translating user interface,
but editing XML files isn't any better. The translation tools (or
vim/emacs/etc. po-mode) allow us to focus on
