[Qt-l10n] [Development] Using Transifex for handling Qt localization?

[Gábor Garami]

Just my two cent:

First, I am a translation leader of Hungarian language, and as I
experience, Linguist is quite enough for translating Qt. Even if Linguist
can be better, translating Qt is not a very special thing (except Designer
and Creator), there are some general strings and there is a lot of examples
how to translate them.

In other hand, I do not know any translation service (including Transifex)
what can tell you how the string placed what you translating. Linguist can
show you the complete dialog where the translation will being placed and
this help is not replaceable.

My second thought is if Qt has a translation software and it is not found
enough to translate the Qt itself, then we do something very wrong. If
things are really needed to translate Qt, then we need to implement them in
Linguist, because this is our dedicated and customizable translation tool.

Btw, I cannot imagine why Nokia (and previously Trolltech) do not foucus to
Linguist to improve it and make it as a best translation software (I used
it in a lot of translation project, in some cases I converted external
sources to TS just for use Linguist, so I little lack an objectivity). As I
see Linguist is a quite good translator software but it can be more better
(External API integration in suggestions, more intelligent translation
memory), and I would like if we improve it instead of giving up a lot of
work what invented into this utility.

This is my private opinion, maybe I missed some points.

Regards,
--
Gabor Garami
hrgyster at gmail.com

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenhagen at nokia.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:55:41PM -0700, ext Quim Gil wrote:
> > - How valuable is to have an efficient tool for handling translations
> > between teams - as opposed to whatever process we have now? Are we happy
> > with the current system? Do we believe we would improve significantly
> > with a tool like Transifex?
> >
> not being a translator myself (except to help out with strings i have
> some relation to as the developer), i cannot really assess the added
> value. i can imagine it would be significant - qt linguist just ain't
> that great, and our review infrastructure completely sucks for
> translations.
> i cc'd the qt-l10n list to move the discussion over to a relevant place.
>
> > fwiw I just learned that Transifex allows projects to define a CLA which
> > needs to be signed before joining a team.
> >
> > As an example (you need to sign in):
> >   https://meego.transifex.net/projects/p/meego/cla/
> >
> > As far as Reviewing is concerned, there is this feature in Transifex
> > itself. Each string can be reviewed from a privileged translator. Each
> > team can have any number of reviewers.
> >
> you still need to get this sorted with nokia legal, but it sounds like
> the tools to make a point are there.
>
> but irrespective of that, i think it would indeed make sense to make the
> translations lgpl-only (or use a CC license, as that's more appropriate,
> at least in theory) - there doesn't seem to be much of a business case
> for making them "proprietarily utilizable" (though we'd need some hard
> data from digia on that matter). it would also enable us to use a lot of
> qt translations from the kde community.
>
> one thing to consider is that some translators may not particularly like
> the idea of using a proprietary web app for their work, so gerrit would
> still need to be the authoritative repository with "normal" submissions
> enabled. i think that's doable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-l10n mailing list
> Qt-l10n at qt.nokia.com
> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-l10n
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/localization/attachments/20120521/26345bbb/attachment.html>