Op Do, 2011-01-13 om 12:35 +0000 skryf Michael Bauer: > The preferred name is Scottish Gaelic (Gaelic is ambiguous as you say, > referring to Scots, Irish and Manx Gaelic).
I committed initial support for Scottish Gaelic including the plural form to our software, and it will form part of our next release. > Special characters would be the vowels with grave Àà Òò Ùù Èè Ìì ... Is there a specific reason you mention them in this order? I usually try to sort alphabetically or in order of frequency if it is obvious (for example I usually list the capitals last). Where shall we position the Tironian ampersand (when we decide which one to use :-)? > ... and the > Tironian ampersand. Now technically that's ⁊ at U+204A but practically > speaking, people often use ┐ at U+2510 because it's visually usually the > same but is more commonly represented in fonts. 204A would be better but > I can live with 2510. What do you think? I can't speak for the font coverage. On my system U+204A is displayed with DejaVu Sans just fine, which is the font used as the main UI font on most Linux distributions, I think. It is also packaged with OpenOffice.org as far as I know, so it isn't totally unsupported. In tools that use a Monospace font by default (like Virtaal or text editors) it might be more of an issue, since I see it isn't present in DejaVu Sans Mono, although I still have it in the FreeMono font on my system. Most such editors allow setting a custom font anyway. The more important issue might be that the Unicode properties for these two characters are different. The one is classified as punctuation (204A) and the other as a symbol (2510). This won't make a difference in many situations, but can only make things go wrong. I guess it might affect advanced searches, line breaking and maybe more. I can't say for sure. As a total outsider it seems as if 204A could hold some advantages, but in terms of the practicalities I can't cast a judgement. The ideal would be if we gradually do things better, but it is hard to convince people to improve font support for small languages. It is a common problem in Africa for languages needing extra diacritics. Now if you could get some government to mandate language support for imported products, it might just get fixed quite quickly :-) > What sort of customisations for Virtaal are you talking about? I've not > used it much so not sure what's possible etc. Similar things to what would help improving OpenOffice.org. We can use a spell checker and autocorrect data exactly as they are used in OpenOffice.org. I guess Kevin Scannel is the best person to talk to with regards to spell checkers. I can help you build the necessary autocorrect files - we have some scripts to take a spreadsheet of incorrect -> correct columns and generate the file needed for Virtaal and OpenOffice.org. Another interesting feature of Virtaal is Autoterm, where translators can automatically obtain the common FOSS glossary. Read more here: http://translate.sourceforge.net/wiki/virtaal/autoterm Further customisations to the quality checks might benefit users if there are common false positives or cases where the accuracy of the tests can be improved with knowledge of Scottish Gaelic. This is not important or urgent. I guess if you use the quality checks you might eventually know if there are things you want to see improved. Keep well Friedel -- Recently on my blog: http://translate.org.za/blogs/friedel/en/content/versions-dependencies-different-distributions --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
