On 13 juil. 07, at 04:45, Rafaella Braconi wrote:
No, but that means that correct TMX files are a possibility (even
now). By the way I wonder why Rafaella told me creating TMXs of
the state of the strings before the current updates was impossible ?
to clarify: the only possibility I have is to provide you TMX files
in which translation exactly matches the English text now. If the
English source has been changed I have following situation:
New English text - Old translation (matching previous text).
In the database I have no possibility to provide you with files
containing Old English text and Updated English text.
Don't you have a snapshot of the doc _before_ it is modified ?
I mean, I have the 2.2.1 help files on my machine, so I can use the
XML files in, for ex, sbasic.jar in the EN folder and align them with
the same files in the FR folder and create a valid TMX of the state
of the 2.2.1 version.
This is what I suggest you keep somewhere, for each language pair
(with EN in source).
So you have a static set of TMX, archived by module (sbasic, swriter,
etc) for each language, available from the community web, and
translators just get the TMX they need for their current assignment.
Such files don't need to be dynamically generate,d they are valid for
the most recent stable release, once the release is updated the files
can be output for the translation of the next version.
So, create the TMX _before_ you modify the data base, _or_ from
static files that exist anyway inside any copy of OOo. And create TMX
level2 files, with all the original XML encapsulated so as not to
confuse CAT tools and translators.
Regarding the output of "proper" source files, now that we (I...)
know that the original is in XML, it should be trivial to provide
them either directly as XML sets (specifically _without_ outputting
diffs), or as XML diffs, or as XLIFFs.
You may have some technical requirements that have you produce SDF
files, but those only add an extra layer of complexity to the
translation process and I am sure you could have a clean XML output
that includes all the SDF contained meta info, so that the source
file _is_ some kind of XML and not an hybrid that considers XML as
text (which is the major source of confusion).
If you have an XML workflow from the beginning, it should be much
safer to keep it XML all the way hence:
original = XML (the OOo dialect)
diffs = XML (currently SDF, so shift to a dialect that uses the SDF
info as attributes in XML "diffs" tags for ex)
source = XML (XLIFF)
reference = XML (TMX, taken from the original)
TMX is not supported by most PO editors anyway, so a clean TMX would
mostly benefit people who use appropriate translation tools (free
ones included).
Regarding the XLIFF (or PO, depending on the communities I gather)
source output, each community (and even each contributor) could use
the output that fits the tools in use.
XLIFF should be 1.0 so as to ensure OLT can be used (OLT does not
support more recent versions of XLIFF sadly).
And then you have a clean workflow that satisfies everybody, and the
management (Pootle) system can be put on all that to provide
communities with the best environment possible.
And of course, this workflow is also valid for UI strings, since I
suppose they can also be converted to XML (if they are not already).
What about that ?
Jean-Christophe Helary (fr team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
