Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Pootle up to date?
Hi, > Von: Andras Timar > > > > Yes, I did the update and I did not inform anybody, because I was waiting > for another string change that eventually did not happen (I mean the License > dialog). Anyway, AFAIK it did not add a new string. Sorry for making > confusion. Ah - ok (don't worry, I thought something like that). Can you ask if the License Dialog will be available for translation? (I'm not sure who is in charege of this) I still have the dream of something like a string freeze :) thanks and regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] LO Pootle
Hi, > - Ursprüngliche Nachricht - > Von: Jan Holesovsky > Gesendet: 04.01.11 16:46 Uhr ... > > Basically, it suggests what Freek says - having git as the authoritative > source, while providing all the strengths of Pootle as Andras explained > (xliff, downloading/uploading of tarballs, etc.) > > An admin with the appropriate rights gets an [Update] button that > transparently updates the files from git (should there be changes in git > by the translators that commit their changes directly). The page says > that there is also possible to trigger commit from the Pootle server, > though there are some troubles there; I'll look more. > > If this works, to me it seems that this is be the best from all the > worlds: ... > > How does that sound? Yes, this would surely be the prefered solution. Some problems that we might run into: - the pootle server process is running under the apache user account on the server, so the commits to vcs will be done using this account. This might be a problem with ssl authentification as used at fdo's git. Commit permissions from the translator's (WebUI) perspective can be set per user, but will be handled by the same system user in the background. - afaik pootle is not prepared to properly handle conflicts (maybe we can get help from translate.za team or we need to define pootle vs. vcs it as "either direction solution" per language. (Already mentioned by rimas) - performance might be a problem. Currently we use memcached (so translation files, statistics ... are in memory). I experienced delays, when files were flushed to disk or re-read from disk. Ok, nothing that should stop us from providing a good solution, but we need to have a look at. Regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] LO Pootle
Hi, > Von: Aron Xu > > I've tried xliff2po to convert documentation file to po, and it > produces a po file with no header, but many duplicate msgids. We are > lacking tools like msgmerge, msgfmt for xliff/sdf translation files, > which significantly increases the hardness of managing them. Well, converting po to xliff to work on xliff and then convert back to po is quite stupid. You do not get the advanteges of the more feature-rich xliff file format (as you are still restricted to the po capabilities) but lose the tooling support that you know from po. XLIFF is only usefull if it is your primary file format for handling translations. Tools similar to msgmerge are available. Most of translate toolkit tools process xliff files the same way as they do with po. So - for our current workflow (where unfortunately sdf will stay for a while, as "internal" file format) it does not really matter if you use po or xliff - it's more or less a matter of taste. I'd prefere xliff. given the fact, that we process the files with translate toolkit in our build environment anyway, it should be easy to leave the joice to the language team and have the build enviroment work with either xliff or po. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] LO Pootle
Þann fim 6.jan 2011 14:55, skrifaði Andre Schnabel: So - for our current workflow (where unfortunately sdf will stay for a while, as "internal" file format) it does not really matter if you use po or xliff - it's more or less a matter of taste. I'd prefere xliff. given the fact, that we process the files with translate toolkit in our build environment anyway, it should be easy to leave the joice to the language team and have the build enviroment work with either xliff or po. Just curious; if the software would be adapted to use .mo files (compiled from .po) instead of .sdf, would there be speed issues ? It's quite nice when translating software UI to generate .mo's from the .po's and dumping them into the LC_MESSAGES folder, restart application and you see your changes right away. regards, Sveinn í Felli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Translating ODF files on Pootle
Hi, > Von: Rimas Kudelis > Gesendet: 27.12.10 15:10 Uhr > > Are you sure? There were plenty of placeholders in the file exported by > Sophie. To me, it looks like most of the problem is actually in Pootle > itself, because it simply ignores XML tags in the translatable string. The problem might look "simple" - but afaik, all (but one) free translation editors share the same problem. Pootle has the problem, I'd bet virtaal (based on the same toolkit) has the same problem. Wordforge Editor removes the inline tags (just tested). OLTE removes them (spent some days on trying to find a solution, but it woult mean a major redesign of the internal translation handling in the editor). Afaik, only Lokalize handles inlines correctly. I did not check other tools like OmegaT yet. So after all, for document translation XLIFF is the better (because more rich) file format, but it lacks the tools :( regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-l10n] Do we get a fresh dump from OOo Pootle?
Hi, We the Danish team has been working on both OOo Pootle and LibO Pootle lately. We would very much like the translations on OOo Pootle to be integrated in LibreOffice. Would someone be so kind to give us a hand? Language: da (Danish) both GUI and Help. Thanks, Leif Lodahl Danish Team. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Do we get a fresh dump from OOo Pootle?
2011/1/6 leif > Hi, > We the Danish team has been working on both OOo Pootle and LibO Pootle > lately. We would very much like the translations on OOo Pootle to be > integrated in LibreOffice. > > Would someone be so kind to give us a hand? > > Language: da (Danish) both GUI and Help. > Hi Leif, Did you work on OOo 3.3 translation in OOo Pootle? I can help you to merge fixes from OOo 3.3 translation to LibreOffice 3.3 translation. You need to give me the URL of the latest OOo 3.3 po files or sdf file. On page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Translation_for_3_3 we can read: "We use translations (.sdf files) from the OOo repository. We included the latest translation fixes from CWS ooo330l10n4." However, these files were patched a few times lately (URL changes, Oracle -> %OOOVENDOR, etc.). So I need to reapply those changes to your new OOo 3.3 translation. Best regards, Andras -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Translating ODF files on Pootle
Hi André, 2011.01.06 17:06, Andre Schnabel rašė: Are you sure? There were plenty of placeholders in the file exported by Sophie. To me, it looks like most of the problem is actually in Pootle itself, because it simply ignores XML tags in the translatable string. The problem might look "simple" - but afaik, all (but one) free translation editors share the same problem. Pootle has the problem, I'd bet virtaal (based on the same toolkit) has the same problem. Nope. In fact, I was explicitly suggested by Pootle/Virtaal's authors that we use Virtaal for XLIFF because of much better support for this file format. Wordforge Editor removes the inline tags (just tested). OLTE removes them (spent some days on trying to find a solution, but it woult mean a major redesign of the internal translation handling in the editor). Afaik, only Lokalize handles inlines correctly. I did not check other tools like OmegaT yet. So after all, for document translation XLIFF is the better (because more rich) file format, but it lacks the tools :( Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-l10n] [NEW STRINGS] License Dialog (fdo#32563)
Hi, Kendy's patch was pushed today, I update pot file in git. Rimas, can you please upload it to Pootle. I do hope it was the last string change. ;-) Many thanks, Andras -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-l10n] Why is multilang installer for Windows not multilingual?
Hello, as you all know I am one of the skeptics that the road with multilang installer without help + localized help pack is the right way to proceed with LO as it will cut the adoption in those areas that OOo was getting strong - in the public sector that requires all software to be localized in native languages (Europe especially). But this is not the core thought of this post. I have asked here to make the multilang installer for Windows (if LO coding team already insist on it) multilingual. All of the installer strings are already translated in the OOo sdf's, so this does not present any problem, except for the probable language selection dialog page as the first welcome screen of the installer (where a dropdown of available installer GUI languages is listed). This should not raise the size of the installer in any way. See installers for Pidgin, AbiWord etc. how this is done. If this is not done, then the multilang installer can only pass the English QA, and all other l10n teams can only vote: NOT APPROVED. Will LO 3.3 be released only in English? Lp, m. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Why is multilang installer for Windows not multilingual?
2011/1/7 Martin Srebotnjak > > I have asked here to make the multilang installer for Windows (if LO coding > team already insist on it) multilingual. All of the installer strings are > already translated in the OOo sdf's, so this does not present any problem, > except for the probable language selection dialog page as the first welcome > screen of the installer (where a dropdown of available installer GUI > languages is listed). This should not raise the size of the installer in > any > way. See installers for Pidgin, AbiWord etc. how this is done. > Translated .mst files are already there, they are just not picked up by the installer. So it's rather a bug, not an omission. If I understand correctly, this will be fixed. Cheers, Andras -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
