Re: Migrate website translations to PO [was: Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ?]
Hello, throwing my knowledge from the German translation in ... On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:28:14AM -0400, David Prévot wrote: > Le 06/08/2010 17:23, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit : > > Hi! > > > > * Andrei Popescu [2010-08-05 09:17:59 CEST]: > >> On Vi, 30 iul 10, 11:15:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >>> > >>> Moving to .po probably needs a coordinated effort including at least the > >>> coordinators from all the languages that have more than just a few > >>> translated pages. > >>> > >>> Is there some wiki page about this project? I can start one, but not > >>> until tomorrow. > >> > >> It took a bit longer, but the page is > >> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebsitePO Additional pro: Some parts of the website (namely vote) have several reocurring paragraphs, where I maintain a dedicated script to save the trouble of retranslation. Unfortunately, nobody so far was interested in converting it to po (cf. #364913). This will only help, if po is used rightly, i.e. with variables (as the perl script I'm maintaining essentially does by using regular expressions). On the con side: Working with huge paragraphs with po is a pain, especially with limited screen space. More below. > >> Input from people familiar with po4a and (other) translators would be > >> highly needed. :-)) > > Often parts aren't properly in context, moved around within the po file > > and get confusing when only working on the po file. If done carefully > > this might be solved but it is something that shouldn't be ignored for > > proper decision making. > > I fail to understand the issue here : when working on a blank WML file, > there is no context at all, the only context is in the original file, > which needs to be used when translating a WML file, and can also be used > when working on a PO file. Blank wml file? I usually copy the english file to the German location and then work on the english text, replacing it paragraph by paragraph with the translation. I have all the context I need. Whats unclear for me is if there will be one, one per directory, or thousands of po files. The saved work could only be gained if there are as few as possible po files (e.g. for vote, for News, for DWN, ...), but this would be a hassle as well, as huge files would need to be moved back and forth into CVS. Also if a team has several translators, they might "fight" over a certain file, even if they work on different parts. Of course, context could be problematic, and If there are however lots of small po files, then I somehow fail to see the advantage (except for the rare case of moving paragraphs). Review is easily done on updated translations using "cvs diff", both on the original and the translation. Nothing else required. > > This is related to that po is for translating more-or-less text > > snippets that are meant to be able to stand on their own. Having a text > > seperated into multiple strings, with always the english part in between > > does IMHO block some quality possibilities of having the text flow > > naturally because it doesn't make the final proofreading as easy. > > On the contrary, providing the original text while asking for review > makes it easier for reviewer to understand what it is about (and > eventually spot translation mistakes), without needing them to search > for the ad-hoc part of the original text somewhere on the website. Yes, this eases review in a certain way. I don't see text flow issues, just that for large po files the (wanted) reuse of original text might look like a cloze, so people might miss parts even though they are there. Btw. this depends how you do your review. Why not sending two files to your reviewers? Or teach them CVS, so they can use "CVS diff" as well? Also I would not let them search, I'd provide the link myself, if needed be. So it really boils down to review methods and standards in each team. > > Also, translating longer paragraphs gets annoying, especially when the > > original gets changed. It will mark the string as fuzzy and the > > translator has to dig around in a longer paragraph about what actually > > has changed. One solution to this might be the --previous switch which > > keeps the former string in there for comparison -- but are there > > translation tools that support that properly and can hilight the changes > > in a wdiff form? Maybe I missed some development in that area, feel free > > to enlighten me. As long as such a tool isn't available I consider that > > as a real issue. > > It's one of the feature of Lokalize, don't know if it is implemented in > other tools, but yes: Lokalize provide a colored diff inline between the > old original text and the new one, and make it easy to spot what has > been changed on the paragraph. Well, the decision should not be based on a single tool. I use vim, and I haven't checked it in Squeeze yet, but in Lenny I don't get such a help. IMHO at least some tools should provide the help. Also I found CVS diff very helpful (much b
Re: Migrate website translations to PO [was: Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 06/08/2010 17:23, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit : > Hi! > > * Andrei Popescu [2010-08-05 09:17:59 CEST]: >> On Vi, 30 iul 10, 11:15:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: >>> >>> Moving to .po probably needs a coordinated effort including at least the >>> coordinators from all the languages that have more than just a few >>> translated pages. >>> >>> Is there some wiki page about this project? I can start one, but not >>> until tomorrow. >> >> It took a bit longer, but the page is >> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebsitePO >> >> Input from people familiar with po4a and (other) translators would be >> highly needed. > > While some translators are familiar with working on po files I see some > issues that bother me myself when working on po files: Thanks for your remarks, I'll try to answer some of them. Even if, as a translator, I'm convinced that PO files is a nice tool to handle translations, especially updates, I wonder if this question of migrating the translation of the website to PO files shouldn't be asked to translators, in order to have their feedback, thus CCing debian-i18n. Please continue the discussion on debian-www. > Often parts aren't properly in context, moved around within the po file > and get confusing when only working on the po file. If done carefully > this might be solved but it is something that shouldn't be ignored for > proper decision making. I fail to understand the issue here : when working on a blank WML file, there is no context at all, the only context is in the original file, which needs to be used when translating a WML file, and can also be used when working on a PO file. > This is related to that po is for translating more-or-less text > snippets that are meant to be able to stand on their own. Having a text > seperated into multiple strings, with always the english part in between > does IMHO block some quality possibilities of having the text flow > naturally because it doesn't make the final proofreading as easy. On the contrary, providing the original text while asking for review makes it easier for reviewer to understand what it is about (and eventually spot translation mistakes), without needing them to search for the ad-hoc part of the original text somewhere on the website. > Also, translating longer paragraphs gets annoying, especially when the > original gets changed. It will mark the string as fuzzy and the > translator has to dig around in a longer paragraph about what actually > has changed. One solution to this might be the --previous switch which > keeps the former string in there for comparison -- but are there > translation tools that support that properly and can hilight the changes > in a wdiff form? Maybe I missed some development in that area, feel free > to enlighten me. As long as such a tool isn't available I consider that > as a real issue. It's one of the feature of Lokalize, don't know if it is implemented in other tools, but yes: Lokalize provide a colored diff inline between the old original text and the new one, and make it easy to spot what has been changed on the paragraph. > The last issue I see is with the the core way how po works: If it finds > an untranslated or fuzzy string it will put the english original into > the place. This might be something useful for applications to specificly > support work-in-progress approaches and not render a translation invalid > for a string that might only be an error message or such - but then I > don't consider this as an acceptable approach for the website. It would > be quite confusing for people to see a mix of english and their own > language on the same page and switch like from every paragraph to the > next. I *do* consider it better in that cases to have a potential > (minorly) outdated page but completely in the native language than a mix > of english and their language. It might be possible to trick the usual PO workflow, by keeping the generated WML file in VCS, and update it if and only if the translator updates the PO file. Anyway, even if I understand the "please keep fully (even outdated) translated pages" argument, I don't think it applies to the whole site. For example, I think it would be better if developers' related stuff would be kept up to date, even if not the whole page is translated (rationale: developers needs to interact in English anyway, even if translated documentation is helpful, up to date documentation is more important). > Also, in some areas we do encourage adding language specific > information - I'm not too sure how that should work with po4a. Also, in > some specific situations it happened that translators have changed the > formating of a page (like seperating/merging two paragraphs) and it > might make sense for them to keep that possibility. Different languages > do have different representation requirements. Actually po4a can handle addendum, which is a nice way to add some more information (it is o
Re: Migrate website translations to PO [was: Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ?]
Hi! * Andrei Popescu [2010-08-05 09:17:59 CEST]: > On Vi, 30 iul 10, 11:15:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > > Moving to .po probably needs a coordinated effort including at least the > > coordinators from all the languages that have more than just a few > > translated pages. > > > > Is there some wiki page about this project? I can start one, but not > > until tomorrow. > > It took a bit longer, but the page is > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebsitePO > > Input from people familiar with po4a and (other) translators would be > highly needed. While some translators are familiar with working on po files I see some issues that bother me myself when working on po files: Often parts aren't properly in context, moved around within the po file and get confusing when only working on the po file. If done carefully this might be solved but it is something that shouldn't be ignored for proper decision making. This is related to that po is for translating more-or-less text snippets that are meant to be able to stand on their own. Having a text seperated into multiple strings, with always the english part in between does IMHO block some quality possibilities of having the text flow naturally because it doesn't make the final proofreading as easy. Also, translating longer paragraphs gets annoying, especially when the original gets changed. It will mark the string as fuzzy and the translator has to dig around in a longer paragraph about what actually has changed. One solution to this might be the --previous switch which keeps the former string in there for comparison -- but are there translation tools that support that properly and can hilight the changes in a wdiff form? Maybe I missed some development in that area, feel free to enlighten me. As long as such a tool isn't available I consider that as a real issue. The last issue I see is with the the core way how po works: If it finds an untranslated or fuzzy string it will put the english original into the place. This might be something useful for applications to specificly support work-in-progress approaches and not render a translation invalid for a string that might only be an error message or such - but then I don't consider this as an acceptable approach for the website. It would be quite confusing for people to see a mix of english and their own language on the same page and switch like from every paragraph to the next. I *do* consider it better in that cases to have a potential (minorly) outdated page but completely in the native language than a mix of english and their language. Also, in some areas we do encourage adding language specific information - I'm not too sure how that should work with po4a. Also, in some specific situations it happened that translators have changed the formating of a page (like seperating/merging two paragraphs) and it might make sense for them to keep that possibility. Different languages do have different representation requirements. I would like to know how this approach would like to tackle those. Thanks! Rhonda -- "Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte." -- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100806212300.ga30...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Migrate website translations to PO [was: Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 05/08/2010 03:17, Andrei Popescu a écrit : > On Vi, 30 iul 10, 11:15:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> >> Moving to .po probably needs a coordinated effort including at least the >> coordinators from all the languages that have more than just a few >> translated pages. Sure, but is there really a need to *force* up to date translation to be handled with po4a ? Don't get me wrong, I really agree it would be an improvement to handle translation with po4a, but if possible, it would be nice to keep the ability to continue using directly WML in language teams (at least for the beginning): convert existing translation is still a manual process (well described in po4a(7)), so it would probably better to provide an hybrid system: if the PO file exists, use it, if not, use the "normal" translated WML file as usual. The advantage of the hybrid system, will be to permit every team to test the new system (find and fix some issues), and gradually upgrade to po4a use (and once done, VCS issue won't be a problem to maintain up to date translations since every information needed will be directly in the PO files). >> Is there some wiki page about this project? I can start one, but not >> until tomorrow. > > It took a bit longer, but the page is > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebsitePO > > Input from people familiar with po4a and (other) translators would be > highly needed. Thanks, I'm currently adding those previous remarks (and some other ones I've in mind: disk space will double; a recent version of po4a should be used to handle correctly addendum only if it exists, I think the backported one will do, etc.) Cheers. David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkxayTMACgkQ18/WetbTC/ojuQCeOT4yyemWpudJszCvLK6bmjjS m3wAoIvHQGkjg4J+w6hDKxWl9pAfhr6P =/H3M -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5ac934.7050...@tilapin.org
Migrate website translations to PO [was: Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ?]
On Vi, 30 iul 10, 11:15:17, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > Moving to .po probably needs a coordinated effort including at least the > coordinators from all the languages that have more than just a few > translated pages. > > Is there some wiki page about this project? I can start one, but not > until tomorrow. It took a bit longer, but the page is http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWebsitePO Input from people familiar with po4a and (other) translators would be highly needed. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
