Re: Arabeyes Translation Teams.

["Djihed Afifi" <djihedlists at googlemail dot com>]

> I'm saying that the amount of projects not using po files are a very small fraction
> (If we ignore open office and mozilla). I'd say that we needn't reconsider.
> We should leave the project coordinator to choose.




> > >I also guess that using pootle (Or some other web translation interface)
> > >might prove
> > >useful. I can't tell as this is something we didn't try. I can set up a
> > > >pootle (Or
> > >whatever tool) on my website to test and see. The problem is that it won't
> > >know about
> > >the translations committed to the CVS.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. We should definitely give Pootle a test-drive.
>
> Pootle or any other. We need to discuss 2 issues:
> * Is it really pootle ? or webbabel ? or ....... ?
> * How are we going to use CVS and pootle at the same time ?

I think pootle is considering auto CVS syncing. Pootle is still in
development, but it's very promising, and could end a lot of our
problems.
As a test-drive, one might consider using it on a small translation
project, and see what we can do.


> > >We also need a technical glossary. This is IMHO a must. The word lists
> > >project
> > >contains a lot of words but it's not that useful.
> >
> >
> > The technical glossary is being worked on as we speak.
>
> Sorry. But this is not an answer. Who is working on it ? Details please ?

It has been discussed on this list a few days ago (July archives
should have it). Have a look  in CVS under
translate/technicaldictionary (I admit we should find a better name
for it). Youssef Chahibi is working on it ATM with the help of a few
translators. It's very promising, and a step in the right direction.


> > Kbabel is the one we have documented. At the time when I started
> > translating, we had a choice between kbabel and gtranslator.
> > gtranslator was so buggy though that using kbabel was a no-brainer
> > decision.
>
> I agree.
>
> > I am not sure if poedit existed at the time. But if a translator wants
> > to use it and as long as it does not mess up the files, sure why not?
> > However that will not stop people like me from advocating that kbabel
> > is still the _best_ translation tool out there because, well, its just
> > the truth :-)
>
> Did you try poedit ? You can't say that kbabel is the best if you didn't try other >applications.

Guys, can we please try to stick to high level and leave out the
details just yet. Especially with personal preferences. Obviously,
with translation tools there is a choice, and choice is always good, I
wouldn't like this to turn into another software flamewar akin to vim
vs emacs :-)


> > >I wrote my reply before I reach this point. It's cool to find someone
> > >sharing
> > >the same thoughts.
> > >
> > >I'd also say that we drop all the development projects. Concentrate on
> > >translation
> > >and testing FOSS applications for Arabic support. Report bugs (and maybe
> > >try to fix them
> > >if we have resources) and interact with various projects developers.
> >
> >
> > Well, we do not actually have to do that. We can concentrate on
> > translation sure, but dropping development projects will not help,
> > IMHO.
>
> Maybe we shouldn't. I'm not sure yet.

Arabeyes is set to support Arabic. Without Arabeyes things like arabic
support in Vim, putty, katoob etc wouldn't have been dev'ed, or at
least not as good as they are. Believe it or not, many people *do* use
them.


> > >
> > >Even if someone comes and translates 10 strings then decided to quit. We
> > >gained
> > >the 10 strings and we gained him as he might return back.
> > >
> > >
> > >There's also something: The "Don't ever use cp1256 encoding" attitude.
> > >I don't understand what's wrong with cp1256 ? It's a well known encoding.
> > >If I write an
> > >email in cp1256 and all the headers are fine. I guess it's not a sin.
> >
> >
> > Nothing is wrong with any encoding as long as we _all_ use that same
> > encoding and use it everywhere. But IMHO we cannot have some files in
> > UTF-8 and some in CP1256. You just have to choose one and stick with
> > it. For obvious reasons, we choose UTF-8.
>
> I'm talking email here. Not files!
> and no. You can't expect all the people to use/do the same thing. This is life ;-)
>
> > Thanks for the ideas Mohammed. Good to see your still concerned :-)