Hi, I'm sorry for delaying response to you. Now I've got back from my vacation :-)
First of all, I perfectly agree with the idea of converting docbook to PO files. We should do it sooner or later. On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Philip Olson<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44, pedram >> salehpoor<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> I wanted to know how the changes for PO files are progressing and if >>> there >>> is anything that I can do to ease the change? >> >> There was a recent discussion about this recently.. It seemed that >> people had great fears of needing to read over every single snippet >> (thousands, probably hundreds of thousands) and verify their >> correctness. > > I didn't sense this fear, or likely ignored it. The conversion default is > fuzzy but we can easily change that. > > A larger fear is lost content because the conversion is not perfect. A rough > example (which could easily be way off) shows Japanese at 78% translated via > PO files post test conversion... so about a 20% loss. Assuming this is > correct, it's a real problem but is a one time deal and likely could be > better with improved conversion methods. If something is moderately up to > date and follows the same structure as en/ (like, the same number of > <para>'s), then it should [theoretically] convert fine. This conversion > deserves better testing/debugging. If this figure (about 20% loss) is true, I'm so uneasy in the conversion now. I think we can spend a little extra time to preparation for the accuracy of conversion. Of course, I know that we can't avoid some loss. But personally 20% isn't acceptable. Regards, -- TAKAGI Masahiro mailto:[email protected]
