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

Re: Planning a future L10N infrastructure (including Fedora)



On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
> > >
> > > Thoughts and comments, all sorts of comments, are very welcome.
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong but I see "transifex is great
> > or close to it" and "here's how we're going to build our own solution
> > anyway" ?
>
> Yes, "Transifex is great and will continue to serve us".
>
> BUT:
>
> If you look at the state of the art in L10N outside the typical Linux projects
> where PO and Gettext rule, you'll notice we are very short on areas like:
> - Translation Reuse
> - Terminology Management
> - Translation Workflow and Project Management
> - Integration with CMSs.
> - Richer Translation Tools
>
> This is an effort in narrowing that gap, and I can't see that effort work by
> evolving an existing tool from this 'cultural background'. Yes, we can get
> some of the way by developing custom solutions for e.g. linking wikis to
> Transifex for CMS integration, or using e.g. Pootle for web-based translation.
> But we would still be limited to the core architecture of the intent of the
> original developers, which is something that would radically slow the project
> down.
>
> That said, I am not talking down Transifex, and the fact that someone in the
> community has sacrificed a lot and done a great job in getting us this far
> within Fedora.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong though, instead of forking or adapting or working
with upstream, you are talking about doing your own thing right?

	-Mike


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