2011.03.04 09:14, Yury Tarasievich rašė:
Also, I still can't readily find on LO sites the authoritative description of the .PO based L10N process.
It's more-or-less outlined here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Translation_for_3_3, except the "Translators should use Pootle" part, which should have been worded "Translators are suggested to use Pootle" or similarly.
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.
Dwayne has already mentioned why this particular criticism for Pootle is incorrect. I'll add one more thing: the process of translating in Pootle is quite flexible: the language admin can grant anyone permissions to submit translations, or to suggest them. Say you don't have a terminology file on hand, but you want to keep it consistent – in that case you'd just give the team members the right to suggest, and one or two reviewers to submit the suggested translations. That's what a few teams already do, and it works pretty well.
By the way, Pootle can even autogenerate a terminology file for you. It would need a review, of course, but it would still be a huge step forward.
Regards, Rimas -- 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 ***
