On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:20:41PM +0300, Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj wrote: [...] > kbabel can build a dictionary of sorts from a > collection of POs, [...] > But of course, this is just a useful feature. If it severely > interferes with actually getting the translation done, maybe we need > to reconsider. 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 ? > > >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 ? > 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. > >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. > > > >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 :-) Cheers, :-) -- GNU/Linux registered user #224950 Proud Egyptian GNU/Linux User Group <www.eglug.org> Member. Life powered by Debian, Homepage: www.foolab.org -- Don't send me any attachment in Micro$oft (.DOC, .PPT) format please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Preferable attachments: .PDF, .HTML, .TXT Thanx for adding this text to Your signature
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature