On 2011-03-04 09:14, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
Also, I still can't readily find on LO sites the authoritative
description of the .PO based L10N process. Pootle isn't acceptable for
the languages with the comparatively weak terminological base . In
such cases it's common for everybody to translate "just as one sees
fit". Sasha's contribution on Pootle is already deviating from the
terminology used in the existing Belarusian translation.
We have many African languages who also have weak terminology that
benefit from using Pootle.
The difference is that they include their terminology in the terminology
project on Pootle. You can do that also, in which case people giving
suggestions and translations are guided by the teams terminology lists.
I'd say Pootle in that case is a better way to localise since the
terminology is central and available to everyone. I'm not trying to
convince you to change anything, I just think that that specific
criticism on Pootle is not well informed.
--
Dwayne
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
