Hi all,
I have read the file with the corrections of Alpha and the more I read
the more I were disappointed. I find the the way of working very
unpleasant. That is the reason that I read the file very quickly and
only on a few places had written a comment in column P.
I was so disappointed that I had thought a while to stop all my
activity's for the community. But at last the community was not the
reason of my anger but the way of working after the review.
I expected that the "problems" in the translations not only by the
reviewers are brought in the community but also through the other
players in this. If I read the file then I don't believe that all
players brings problems to the community.
In my mind I started with this job to maken OOo 2.0 *NL *better than it
was en in that is no place for remarks as:
- Not allowed
- ???
- Waarom de Engelse tekst niet vertaald.
Issues with that answers had to be brought to the community on an
earlier moment and not in a file with this comments after 3 months. (If
a reviewer had make a misstake than he/she makes the same mistake today
and this could be stopped 3 month ago).
Beside the writing above I had the strong idea that the people who give
the comments on the issues had only see the English help en NOT the
Dutch OOo 2.0.? software. If they had looked to that software than was
been the question at that issue not necassary.
I attached the file with a few comments in column P to issue 59216
With regards
Henk van der Burg
Rafaella Braconi schreef:
Hi,
please see my answers below:
H.C. van der Burg wrote:
Hi Rafaella,
Rafaella Braconi schreef:
Dear All,
Alpha has carried out the correction of the Calc module. During this
correction cycle Alpha has also corrected some global errors
throughout the help files.
They have created a spreadsheet well describing what they have
corrected so far. The spreadsheet is available as attachment to
issue 59216. Instructions on how to read the spreadsheet are also
posted in the issue.
I found the file and I saw the corrections. But there are also rows
that are not corrected, mostly rules with NOK, NOK*. There are also
rules with NOK where the comment of Alpha is "we don't understand
what to do". Must we give Alpha or you comments on that rules???
I possible, it would be great to have your feedback on this. My
suggestion would be to add one column in this spreadsheet and to
comment there.
Also is it possible that the reviewer is not agree with the fact that
the correction is not done. There is not ask him/here why he/she ment
that the correction had to be made.
Also, in this case I would add a comment to the spreadsheet for
Alpha/Sun.
There are also rules where Alpha says "We are not allowed". In that
case there is no solution to the problem that is writen on that rule.
As I said in a previous mail, in order to speed up the process, we
thought that is was really very important to prioritize all linguistic
bugs which are not too time consuming. In a second step we need to
evaluate the non-linguistic bugs, that is to say bugs which Alpha
cannot fix. It does not necessarily mean that thare is no solution on
the issues but it may mean that the fix need to be provided by
somebody else (may be from the Help team) and not by the translation
team....
Perhaps you can tell me/us answers on the question above and in
general what must/can we do with this file with the points that we
did not agree.
In case of linguistic bugs a comment would certainly help meeting a
decision on that. The non-linguistic bugs need to be evaluated
separately to see which team may provide the solution in case possible.
Rafaella
I hope I make myself clear.
With regards,
Henk van der Burg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
