Thank you for this. I'll make a few comments below: On Di, 2006-10-03 at 17:48 +0200, mvillarino wrote: > Hello. > Wia another mail-list I'm subscribed to, I've just received the attached odt > text document, describing the results of the evaluation of several web-based > translation tools. > This has been done by "mancomun.org", an initiative of the galician > government > (xunta.es) and the enterprise cesga (cesga.es, iirc, a public enterprise) to > improve free software. > The text is in galician, but I will abstract it: > Rossetta was not considered due to its non-free license. > The winner is "entrans". Actually, cesga has done a patch to improve it's > functionality over files structured in directories. > > The main backdraws to pootle has been: Low Usability, Difficulty of > administration and to point in its functionality:
We are aware that there are improvements necessary here, and I am especially optimistic that Gasper Zejn's work on moving to Django could improve things considerably. Consequently I don't want to focus heavily on this now. However, I believe that for translators the interface is not as problematic. > - Not able to generate and query a translation memory (corpus) from po files, Work on this is already in place. We have code to do TM matching (in the translate toolkit), and for display of the matches that are found. There is a tool to generate the matches for Pootle files. It is not done realtime, but has to be done on the server, to generate matches beforehand so that it doesn't affect interactivity. This is obviously important for us as wel. > - Conflicts and detection of mistakes inter po (??? I think that this is > somethink like to check that the same msgid has the same translation over all > of the files). We already have a tool in the toolkit to detect these conflicts. It is called poconflicts and the documentation is available here: http://translate.sourceforge.net/wiki/toolkit/poconflict This is not yet integrated in Pootle, but at least some of the work is already done. > > For more information, please refer to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "mancomun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > or mail to > arribi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm curious about the other functionalities(?) listed under "Funcionalidade". Number 6 is "Integración de dicionario e outras ferramentas de axuda á tradución." Does this refer to glossary matching and integration? Because we believe that this is already a very useful feature of Pootle. Another issue that I don't think I saw mentioned is the quality checks. This is a great way to improve translation quality since it can point out many mistakes and present them in an easy to use workflow. Another big issue is the fact that we are working towards compatibility with the standards of the localisation industry: XLIFF, TMX, TBX and we believe this to be important as this is about more than just software localisation, and about more than mere web based translation. Anyway, thank you for the report! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Translate-pootle mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/translate-pootle
