Hi all
I have an idea of on line system, that would allow (easier) updating translations. However before putting any effort into actual implementation, I need to know whether it will be used by translators and how to handle some specific situations. This is why I cross-posted this message.
So first question is basically for translators:
Would you prefer manual file editing or web based system?
The rest are implementation details:
Should be access allowed to anyone or limit it to current translators? In case of unrestricted access, there should be some kind of review of translated texts by translator?
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
Michal Čihař a écrit :
Hi all
I have an idea of on line system, that would allow (easier) updating translations. However before putting any effort into actual implementation, I need to know whether it will be used by translators and how to handle some specific situations. This is why I cross-posted this message.
So first question is basically for translators:
Would you prefer manual file editing or web based system?
I think I prefer manual but I guess the majority of translators would prefer web. But maybe I would prefer web after a few times.
The rest are implementation details:
Should be access allowed to anyone or limit it to current translators?
Tricky question, balancing between protecting the data and an inviting system for new translators. I would say that data protection is more important.
In case of unrestricted access, there should be some kind of review of translated texts by translator?
Yes.
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
Auto-commit after approval would be fun. Dealing just with HEAD?
marc
Hi
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:20:54 -0500 Marc Delisle Marc.Delisle@cegepsherbrooke.qc.ca wrote:
Michal Čihař a écrit :
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
Auto-commit after approval would be fun. Dealing just with HEAD?
For start only HEAD, later I might add support for other defined branches as well as it should not be hard.
Hi there.
Would you prefer manual file editing or web based system?
I think I prefer manual but I guess the majority of translators would prefer web. But maybe I would prefer web after a few times.
As one that "often" translates different kinds of websoftware - I would agree that unless some real magic is done in a webinterface - nothing beats editing the files in my regular php-editor.
And I as a regular CVS user - can diff it agains previous versions or own edits.
It gives me power to search for expressions - to see who a similar expression has previeous been translated and I can cut and paste etc.
A webinterface might help somebody to better organize their translations but in most cases I think that most people will prefer to have a textfile.
But - that said - the one method dosen't exclude the other. So if one wants to spend ressources creating a webinterface to do the job, I can't see why both solutions should be provided.
Should be access allowed to anyone or limit it to current translators?
Tricky question, balancing between protecting the data and an inviting system for new translators. I would say that data protection is more important.
Translations should at least be approved by the official translator of each langauge before included in the package. And if it's not possible to get in touch with the official translator of a given langauge - you should pass the job on to another :)
(and yes, I currently dosen't translate phpMyAdmin but originally translated the danish version)
Hi
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:05:58 +0100 Geert Lund - www.GLD.dk phpmyadmin-devel@silversoft.dk wrote:
A webinterface might help somebody to better organize their translations but in most cases I think that most people will prefer to have a textfile.
But - that said - the one method dosen't exclude the other. So if one wants to spend ressources creating a webinterface to do the job, I can't see why both solutions should be provided.
It was primary goal of this post -- to find out whether such effort will be used by someone or it is useless to make such interface. Up to now most people prefer manual translation only one voted for web based one (I do not count those: I prefer manual, but it might be useful). This doesn't give me motivation to implement it, but only ten people have replied so far...
Michal Čihař wrote:
Hi all
I have an idea of on line system, that would allow (easier) updating translations. However before putting any effort into actual implementation, I need to know whether it will be used by translators and how to handle some specific situations. This is why I cross-posted this message.
So first question is basically for translators:
Would you prefer manual file editing or web based system?
I prefer manual translation...
The rest are implementation details:
Should be access allowed to anyone or limit it to current translators? In case of unrestricted access, there should be some kind of review of translated texts by translator?
Obviously an unrestricted access can be a way to involve more people in the translation process, but a review from the official translators can prevent "random" translation :)
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
CVS after approval....
Bye, Luca Rebellato
Italian Translator
Well, here is one vote FOR the proposal. Let me present my views.
Would you prefer manual file editing or web based system?
While many people prefer their favourite off-line editor, I wish there was an easy way to make minor (or major) modifications to the translation without complicated procedure (ie. pull the latest file from CVS, open in the editor, make changes, zip it, upload to Tracker, write comment...). Something like Google in Your Language (http://services.google.com/tcbin/tc.py), but in a more democratic way (I have no idea how Google decides on what changes to accept, and why). That said, :
Should be access allowed to anyone or limit it to current translators? In case of unrestricted access, there should be some kind of review of translated texts by translator?
Access should be allowed to anyone (but with mandatory registration); they could suggest translations, but only authorized (official) translator sould accept and commit them. Also, it would be nice to be able to enter and see multiple variations of the same string, and then let the maintainer choose the best one.
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
It would be nice to be able to commit messages automatically, and skip few boring steps (see above :)).
You should have in mind that several similar systems exist already, like Rosetta (https://launchpad.net/rosetta), primary translation system for the Ubuntu Project and hundreds of other open-source projects. I don't know if it would be possible (possible it is, but is it easy enough?) to import PMA language files to Rosetta, and export and commit them later. Also, too bad the Rosetta software itself is not open-sourced, so you have to use their system, on their servers.
Then there is Pootle (http://translate.sourceforge.net/), but it is written in Python, and is not quite there yet.
Regards,
Mihailo Stefanovic (PMA Serbian Translator)
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:58:26 +0100 Mihailo Stefanović mikis@mikis.org wrote:
Would it be good to automatically commit updated messages to CVS (after possible approval) or just provide way to generate updated file to commit?
It would be nice to be able to commit messages automatically, and skip few boring steps (see above :)).
You should have in mind that several similar systems exist already, like Rosetta (https://launchpad.net/rosetta), primary translation system for the Ubuntu Project and hundreds of other open-source projects. I don't know if it would be possible (possible it is, but is it easy enough?) to import PMA language files to Rosetta, and export and commit them later. Also, too bad the Rosetta software itself is not open-sourced, so you have to use their system, on their servers.
Well I tried to use Rosetta for other project using gettext and they still didn't accept it, so I'm not going to do through long registration to gain nothing...
Then there is Pootle (http://translate.sourceforge.net/), but it is written in Python, and is not quite there yet.
Yes, I wanted first look at existing projects, however I expect there will be much work to port it as most of them expect gettext files.
-
Geert Lund - www.GLD.dk -
Luca Rebellato -
Marc Delisle -
Michal Čihař -
Mihailo Stefanović