https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133984
--- Comment #22 from Daniele <grass...@gmail.com> --- Hi Gerry and Heiko and other contributors. Let me expand on what Gerry just described drawing on what we already do in our organization. We prepare translations using a double, triple or more -columned table in LO Write. 0.The first translator begins translating or revising (since we also help ourselves with AI such as Deepl). S/he works not only on his or her portion, but on the whole text, unifying citations, abbreviations, coding some information (such as author names, foreign words, with character styles), while translating. Questions to other collaborators on difficulties need to be submitted constantly. 1.The second translator/reviser works following the first in order to correct possible mistakes and give feedback to the first translator on the work made in the remaining part of the translation. This one too will have questions for other reviewers. 2. A third revisor usually intervenes 3. Finally a mother-tongue reviewer At the moment, in order to allow 1. to happen we are splitting the document, which means however that work concerning the whole document by 0. cannot be extended to sections on which have been already shared to 1. The same applies for global changes occurring between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. Also, questions asked to specific users (we have invented mentions to indicate for whom the question is (@george in each comment) have to wait until the text is sent to them, thus making it more difficult to remember the context. A multiplication of files is another issue in this setting. Another is the risk of a user opening a file somebody else is working on (but I noticed that sometimes you get a warning). Now, as to Gerry's use cases. We find LO stable, and rich enough for what we need, but we needed collaboration. So we tried MS Onedrive (1. in Gerry's description). It would not handle our files, it would slow down becoming unusable (we are working with books that can reach 600-800 pages, multiply that by the 3 or 4 columns). We tested Collabora Online (2.), even with a smaller file 300 pages in 2 or 3 columns, it slowed down plus it did not handle Languagetool, so it was not retained. I believe that a wide integration is certaily desirable, but assuring that the coding of the changes does not disrupt the file (I hope I am being understandable): if 1. 2. or 3. can handle the file too it is certainly very good. At the moment the peer to peer solution (4.) seems to us very interesting also because it renders the necessity of a server obsolete. I see one possible difficulty (even I still think that peer to peer is best), but you may find a way round: There should be a way to ensure that the changes are passed on even if LO is not open at the same time (if so the user desires). The computer has to be switched on I guess, but not the application necessarely (I think of users being one in Latin America and one in Australia: their changes would have to sync at some point and if one forgets to keep LO open they may rarely do, or users not working at the same time). I guess that people know they will have to coincide at some point in order for the changes to apply to their file and viceversa. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
