Re: wgo i18n

Looks like LinguaPlone doesn't match the needs at all (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Possible solutions are:
- Finding another product that match the Gnome translation workflow (probably doesn't exist)
- Develop the product ourselves (probably too much work needed ? or not ?)
- Use another CMS...


2009/5/6 Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 16:47 +0200, Carsten Senger wrote:

> Murray Cumming schrieb:
> > GNOME has proven itself very capable of translating vast amounts of
> > content to many languages, and keeping it up to date. If you let them
> > use suitable tools, by letting them use .po format. Really, they can do
> > it.
> [snip]
> The po format is not an option here. Plone's ui is translated using po
> files.


>  But the content is translated with an ui that was written for
> people managing content, not for programmers.

Are you talking about linguaplone. I am not aware of any other Plone
system that allows Plone content to be translated. And I thought that
Linguaplone was developed for, with use of .po as an aim.

>  They normally write large
> and often complex junks of html.

HTML is XML, so it can be translated, just like GNOME's DocBook XML,
used for GNOME documentation, which also deals with large blocks of
marked-up content. There's no problem with using .po for this, even if
you are not personally familiar with it.

>  And even if a text markup is used,
> texts are depending more on linguistic features than ui translations.

Markup is not an issue. Markup is used in both GNOME application strings
and GNOME documentation strings, both of which are widely translated.

I'm trying to be clear: If you rule out the use of .po then you will
fail to meet GNOME's translation needs for Any
alternative system or set of tools is not likely to be fully functional,
leading to translations that are incomplete or out-of-sync.

murrayc murrayc com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]