[l10n-dev] Help delete files fom Pootle
Hi! I have accidentally imported help into the UI folder in Pootle Latvian translations. The files are in the helpcontent2 folder: http://pootle2.sunvirtuallab.com/lv/openoffice_org/helpcontent2/? How can I delete them? Viesturs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] Translating on the Wiki
In data venerdì 20 novembre 2009 12:15:25, Clayton ha scritto: [cut] > We've also come across this translation extension: > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Translate > which was originally designed to translate MediaWiki messages, but is > apparently being used to translate Wiki content as well. What may be > of interest to everyone involved in the more formal organized > translation process is the fact that it can export po format. If > you as a group are interested in exploring this extension a little, > I can install it, but... it would be up to you to work with it and > test it to see if it meets your needs. I have some preliminary > contact info with people who say it's suitable to use for page > translations (see > http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Main_Page ) I don't think that .po is the best file format for doing this job. Is there any way for .po files to carry formatting information without being mixed up with content? If would be helpful to see a sample file just to understand how it works. Another solution comes to my mind, but I don't know if it's feasible. Why not to use ODT export extension [1], then translate the document with the preferred CAT tool (or convert it again, for example to XLIFF [2]) and then use Sun Wiki Publisher extension for OOo [3] to put the content back? PROs (some of them valid also for .po): Formatting informations are kept during the whole process No need to stay online to translate Ability to use translation memories (= more consistency, also with OOo) CONs More conversions usually means also more problems Some says that Sun Wiki Publisher generate bloated wiki code (I didn't test it, however) It also will be helpful to know how other teams are translating wiki content, just to share experiences and best practices. Ciao Paolo [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OpenDocument_Export [2] http://translate.sourceforge.net/wiki/toolkit/odf2xliff [3] http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/wikipublisher - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] Re: Instructions on Help review
Hi, Yazaki.Makoto schrieb: Hi all, I am creating HTML files from OOO320_m4_en and Pootle to review the Help. The HTML files is written in English and a other language side by side. I have already created following files. English-German http://www.b-trust.jp/ooo/ooo320_m4_helpcontent2-de.zip This looks really great (and thanks for pointing to some errors). If you need other language HTML files, please say to me. Maybe I can create you want. :) I'd surely need more files - but later (mabe in January / February) to do some help reviews. Could you provide instructions how to create these files (don't want to bug you all the time, we need new files). André - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
[l10n-dev] Re: Info: New structure for the download websites
Marcus...and others responsible... When the memo goes out: I've uploaded developer snapshot build OOO320_m5. OOO320 is the release branch for the upcoming OOo 3.2.x releases. >> Is it possible that in the body of the same memo, list the major (or all of them if there's not THAT many) showstoppers that THAT developer snapshot build has addressed or fixed? It's getting confusing trying to go through two or three sometimes buried URLS's seeing what major showstoppers and a few other fixes have done, and then which developer snapshot build has addressed them. BOTTOM LINE: Instead of / in addition to being more work to do, which it may well be, INCLUDING the above information helps ALL of us...programmers, testers (especially), other related managers and IT's, and even end-users that happen to follow this newsgroup. Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] Re: Re: New home for downloading language packs
2009/11/23 Marcus Lange > Now it's: > > The software in the following table is based on the final release but the > final tests were not done yet. Therefore it cannot be seen > as a released build and it is not recommended to deploy in a production > environment. > > > These two issues might apply to one of the other two download pages if the >> Disclaimer is reused there. >> > > I've changed it as well on "other.html" and "notes.html". > Great! Slowly together we'll will get it perfect! Thanks, m.
Re: [l10n-dev] Re: Re: New home for downloading language packs
Martin Srebotnjak wrote:
Hi Martin,
I was warned again by Slovenian community about the wording of the
Disclaimer on the download site (http://download.openoffice.org/all_rc.html
):
*OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 RC2 - untested full installation sets* *Disclaimer:
The software in the following table is based on the final release but has
not passed all final tests. Therefore it cannot be seen as a released build
and should not be deployed in a production environment.*
Firstly, "but has not passed all final tests" implies, that tests were
performed but that the software packages listed failed them ("did not pass"
= "fail"). Actually these builds were just not tested and there is no proof
that they would fail those tests, probably the reverse is true, they would
probably all pass tests if someone tested them. If not, language communities
or users would be entering issues in IZ already.
yes, could be understood wrong.
So we propose the following wording: "but were not fully tested" or "but did
not undergo the regular OpenOffice.org testing procedure" or "but did not
undergo the regular QA testing procedures" or something like that.
Also "should not be deployed in a production environment" means that if they
are used it is illegal or something, or your computer might explode. This
might be very negative for promotion of OOo in government and civic
environments. We would suggest something like this: "are not recommended for
use in a production environment". One could insert also a "yet".
Now it's:
The software in the following table is based on the final release but
the final tests were not done yet. Therefore it cannot be seen
as a released build and it is not recommended to deploy in a production
environment.
These two issues might apply to one of the other two download pages if the
Disclaimer is reused there.
I've changed it as well on "other.html" and "notes.html".
Thanks
Marcus
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
