← Back to team overview

launchpad-translators team mailing list archive

Re: Prioritize translation types by tags


Fair enough, but I am thinking about this more from a developers
perspective. They are the ones who will know if a particular word or
phrase has a special meaning for the application. Also, as a developer
I have never edited or even looked at a .po or template file. I just
upload a template from time to time. I agree it should be separate
from the tagging system, but the developers should not have to edit
the .pot or .po files directly - perhaps add some interface in Rosetta
that then merges its output into the .pot and .po file comments.



On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ask Hjorth Larsen <asklarsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:43 PM, salsaman <salsaman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have made this suggestion recently, but a README file for each
>> project would be good, so that the project developer(s) can provide
>> general advice about translating a particular project.
>> Also, related to Yinghua's comment, how about a project specific
>> dictionary. For example in the project which I develop, the word
>> "layout" has a very specific meaning - it refers to the layout of
>> clips and effects in the multitrack editing window which can be saved
>> and reloaded. Therefore, the same word should be used each time for
>> "layout" so as not to confuse end users. The developers could create a
>> list of such terms as a project dictionary, and the translators then
>> decide on an equivalent word or phrase in their own language. Then
>> such keywords could be highlighted in bold in the English translation,
>> and when they are moused over, the translation of that keyword could
>> be shown as a tooltip.
> In the usual po-file based translation workflow, if there are phrases
> that are particular to a given project, then those are normally listed
> by the translator as  comments in the po header.  Full support for
> comments in templates as well as for individual strings would indeed
> be a more than welcome addition to Rosetta.  In particular, since
> upstreams probably use the header for the module-specific glossaries,
> it would be ideal for Rosetta to include a way to manipulate it.  In
> conclusion, if we are going to have glossary functionality associated
> with the templates, I think it should use the po-file header and not
> be related to the suggested tagging system.
> Best regards
> Ask