On 21/12/2006, at 8:22 AM, Ain Vagula wrote (in part):
I'm against Pootle as storage and against all about OLT at this point of time. We have translators, who used gettext based tools (also open btw) for a years and who also participate in many other projects (KDE, Gnome, GNU applications, various distributions like SUSE, Mandriva - and reuse alsotranslation compendiums across all this software). Makes it sense to force them to use two different interfaces?
Ain, Pootle provides PO format files. It will convert [1] translation files into your favourite format, using its own Translate Toolkit and po4a.
We translated OpenOffice.org 2.1 in PO format. The resulting files were then converted by Pootle into the GSI file suitable for submission. Pootle also runs the msgfmt tests, plus the OpenOffice.org-specific tests.
So it actually makes it easier for translators from other free- software projects to participate in OpenOffice.org, if they use Pootle. :)
Pootle is just a tool. It's not a compulsory way of doing things. I do some translations online via Pootle. Some files I download and translate offline, using my favourite translation editor.
So Pootle simply gives us another tool to use. It doesn't remove any of our options. In fact, it provides a lot more options.
from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhóm Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN [1] http://translate.sourceforge.net/wiki/nonpo
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
