On 10/11/2006, at 12:50 AM, Francisco Javier F. Serrador wrote:
That sound very good notices. I will setup a pootle server as soon as
possible. Maybe it is the thing we are looking for.
The Pootle developers are very keen to help projects integrate their
tools. You'll be very welcome on tra
That sound very good notices. I will setup a pootle server as soon as
possible. Maybe it is the thing we are looking for.
El jue, 09-11-2006 a las 10:02 +0200, F Wolff escribió:
> On Wo, 2006-11-08 at 23:51 +0100, Francisco Javier F. Serrador wrote:
> > Well, I think we are reusing some libs of t
On 09/11/2006, at 9:21 AM, Francisco Javier F. Serrador wrote:
Well, I think we are reusing some libs of translate-toolkit (which is
part of pootle).
I know about Debian and Pootle experiment, but I have some concerns
about lowering barriers and not lowering quality at the same time.
Lowering
On Wo, 2006-11-08 at 23:51 +0100, Francisco Javier F. Serrador wrote:
> Well, I think we are reusing some libs of translate-toolkit (which is
> part of pootle).
>
> I know about Debian and Pootle experiment, but I have some concerns
> about lowering barriers and not lowering quality at the same t
On Wo, 2006-11-08 at 17:32 -0200, Leonardo Fontenelle wrote:
> One of Pootle's current aim is to improve support for XLIFF. Pootle is
> an online translation tool; although offline (e.g. gtranslator) tools
> are and will remain very important, I believe an online tool should
> lower barriers to con
Well, I think we are reusing some libs of translate-toolkit (which is
part of pootle).
I know about Debian and Pootle experiment, but I have some concerns
about lowering barriers and not lowering quality at the same time.
Lowering technological barriers is good, you get more people involved,
but
One of Pootle's current aim is to improve support for XLIFF. Pootle is
an online translation tool; although offline (e.g. gtranslator) tools
are and will remain very important, I believe an online tool should
lower barriers to contribute and improve translation consistency.
Pootle's documentation
The problem with XLIFF I think there are not enough free software tools
to have a complete globalization stack.
We could use xliff for documentation now, but many of our teams should
learn how to operate with java language tools, (that's the only free
software reliable application dealing with XLI
Thanks for the email/blog responses. Is there a plan to move to Xliff? I
saw this question in one of the blog comments.
regards,
Young
Danilo Šegan wrote On 2006년 11월 07일 오후 04:25,:
___
gnome-i18n mailing list
gnome-i18n@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.o
Hi Young Joo,
Yesterday at 13:27, Young Joo Pintaske wrote:
> A few days ago a colleague wrote a blog:
> http://blogs.sun.com/calum/date/20061101
>
> There he refers to IRC conversation about l10n docs that Sun contributed
> a while ago and that they were useless because of the imcompatible file
Le lundi 06 novembre 2006 à 13:27 -0800, Young Joo Pintaske a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> A few days ago a colleague wrote a blog:
> http://blogs.sun.com/calum/date/20061101
>
> There he refers to IRC conversation about l10n docs that Sun contributed
> a while ago and that they were useless because of the
We use docbook-xml
El lun, 06-11-2006 a las 13:27 -0800, Young Joo Pintaske escribió:
> Hi!
>
> A few days ago a colleague wrote a blog:
> http://blogs.sun.com/calum/date/20061101
>
> There he refers to IRC conversation about l10n docs that Sun contributed
> a while ago and that they were useles
Hi!
A few days ago a colleague wrote a blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/calum/date/20061101
There he refers to IRC conversation about l10n docs that Sun contributed
a while ago and that they were useless because of the imcompatible file
format.
Please forgive my ignorance in the Gnome community proces
13 matches
Mail list logo
