Pavel,
Pavel Janík a écrit : > > On 22.12.2007, at 17:39, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > >> Interesting read indeed. (FYI I forwarded your blog to Pascal Chevrel.) >> May this be read and used by as many localisers as possible! (But of >> course, the real point is to get rid of sdf files and that's a >> completely different story)... > > OK, this is the last piece that made me reply to this. > > I often hear statements like this "We do not need SDF". But people who > write this do not know a lot about the translation, have heard about > one format etc. > > We have many different teams. They use very different methods of > translations (some translate SDF in Calc because it is DOABLE, some > use PO based methods, some use TMX, some use XLIFF). Have you ever > thought why they are able to work as they wish in thir prefered > applications? > > It is because SDF is very flexible and easy to use and convert to > whatever you need/want! But it is not SDF in particular that is so > good. It is the concept of "easy transformation to everything" that is > so successful. And SDF represents it right now. I hear you Pavel, but you seem to be mixing up the actual format and the general benefit we gain from using one format at some point in the process: In short, I know why we use sdf and its greatest advantage: we allow contributors to use the tools they want to localize OOo. Everybody out here heard me claim this a hundred times. But does it mean the actual SDF format is the best choice? > > Charles: what should be used instead of SDF? Do you have at least an > idea? No I don't. I'm just pointing out that there could be different solutions and so far I'm thinking about what we could do with extensions for instance (not really applicable with the 2.x branch but could be worth investigating after the 3.0) And how about you, inquisitor? > Will you help to implement it? If I can, I will. > > In reality, these people who wrote that we do not need SDF, do not > want to get rid of SDF. They are not able to express what they really > need and use "get rid of SDF" phrase instead. > > Yes, there are many rooms for improvements - e.g. context of the > translated word, better tagging etc. If you miss something, please > summarize it clearly in a positive and constructive way - e.g. in Wiki. Rest assured I will do it. I hope you will do it as well, esp. concerning the positive and constructive side of it. Charles. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
