You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/16 18:22:24 UTC
discussion on new l10n workflow
Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
all the notes on open issues I could find.
Please have a look at:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
and
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
a design document for a changed workflow.
I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
comments will be worked into the document.
have a nice day.
jan I
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your reply.
On 19 October 2012 22:33, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 17/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
>
>> Would it be an idea to have 1 UI file pr directory in main (that would be
>> so easy to implement) and 1 Help file pr directory in helpContent2 ?
>>
>
> Yes, this might work. Sure the current 276 files are too many, while
> consolidating too much on the other hand is very inconvenient for sharing
> work. What we should preserve is that is someone is the, say, "Calc guy" in
> the, say, Polish team, then he can be given PO (or other format, this is
> irrelevant) files for the Calc UI and the Calc Help. This enables easy and
> safe division of work.
I agree...but I am not sure we can make the files for like calc, if I am
correct the directories in main does not directly relate to a product part,
many of the directories seems to be generic, but I might be wrong ?
My intentions right now is to propose that each directory is a single
translation file and helpcontent2 is split at that level, but there will be
a new file combine.lst, where we can combine several directories into one.
That way we are flexible but it is still easy to develop.
>
>
> also check the letter accellerators (Ca~ncel) I have a
>> very strong suspicion that they are not always identical.
>>
>
> This is not important. Actually, if I recall correctly we even deprecated
> them at a point. We are not talking about keyboard shortcuts here (e.g.,
> CTRL-S to open a file); we are talking about the, much less common,
> "accelerators", i.e., saving with ALT-F then S. OpenOffice will assign
> these accelerators automatically when they are not set using the "~" in the
> strings, and it makes sense to let OpenOffice assign them, since they are
> not listed in the documentation. Moreover, assigning them manually is very
> error-prone since it often results in conflicts, while automatic
> attribution doesn't.
>
Should we the consistency checker than make a warning when they are used
(which happens approx. 500 times in the danish files) ??
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
For your information I have found a way of splitting the discussion of a
new l10n workflow from the discussion of file formats. That is I have
succeed (I think) in making a workflow that does not rely on the fileformat.
Jan.
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 17/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
> Would it be an idea to have 1 UI file pr directory in main (that would be
> so easy to implement) and 1 Help file pr directory in helpContent2 ?
Yes, this might work. Sure the current 276 files are too many, while
consolidating too much on the other hand is very inconvenient for
sharing work. What we should preserve is that is someone is the, say,
"Calc guy" in the, say, Polish team, then he can be given PO (or other
format, this is irrelevant) files for the Calc UI and the Calc Help.
This enables easy and safe division of work.
> also check the letter accellerators (Ca~ncel) I have a
> very strong suspicion that they are not always identical.
This is not important. Actually, if I recall correctly we even
deprecated them at a point. We are not talking about keyboard shortcuts
here (e.g., CTRL-S to open a file); we are talking about the, much less
common, "accelerators", i.e., saving with ALT-F then S. OpenOffice will
assign these accelerators automatically when they are not set using the
"~" in the strings, and it makes sense to let OpenOffice assign them,
since they are not listed in the documentation. Moreover, assigning them
manually is very error-prone since it often results in conflicts, while
automatic attribution doesn't.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
An internal "audit" sound like the best (and easiest) way.
It should of course be done by a native speaking person (which rules me
out), should I make a bugzilla issue or is there another task list you
could put it on ?
This person should also check the letter accellerators (Ca~ncel) I have a
very strong suspicion that they are not always identical.
rgds
Jan I.
On 17 October 2012 16:12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks
> >
> > I did not see that file, that is what I want to make available for each
> > language and in .po (or .xliff) format so it can be used in the editors.
> >
> > Talking about en-US I have a couple of questions (which you may have
> > discussed in the past)
> >
> > 1) there are no translation to US, meaning that they are stuck with the
> en
> > version (color = colour), is that design or just so happens ?
> > 2) I am used to an en translation as well. Because developers are highly
> > motivated but not necessarily brilliant at end-user language)
>
> We have a en_UK translation. But no special en_US translation. We've
> been using the base strings as essentially the generic English
> version. Any discrepancies are unintentional. The initial strings
> are written by programmers, and most are not native English speakers.
> It is perhaps worth a review of these strings for internal consistency
> as well as spell checking.
>
> > today reporting a message bug in EN leads to a code change, and in all
> > other languages (incl. e.g. en-xx) it is a language issue, that seems
> > overcomplicated.
> >
> > When we change the workflow it would be easy to add en and us as
> translated
> > languages, and in first version they are simply copies of the source.
> >
> > rgds
> > Jan I.
> >
> > On 17 October 2012 14:22, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> >> combining
> >> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >> >
> >> > Please have a look at:
> >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> >> >
> >> > and
> >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >> >
> >> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> >> make
> >> > a design document for a changed workflow.
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail.
> These
> >> > comments will be worked into the document.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You mention the lack of a glossary as an issue, since without one it
> >> is hard to be consistent in terminology. This is true even in
> >> English, with multiple developers.
> >>
> >> I don't know if you saw this file, but this claims to be a glossary
> >> for OpenOffice UI terms:
> >>
> >>
> http://l10n.openoffice.org/localization/OpenOffice.org_en-US_Glossary.csv
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this useful at all?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> > have a nice day.
> >> > jan I
> >>
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks
>
> I did not see that file, that is what I want to make available for each
> language and in .po (or .xliff) format so it can be used in the editors.
>
> Talking about en-US I have a couple of questions (which you may have
> discussed in the past)
>
> 1) there are no translation to US, meaning that they are stuck with the en
> version (color = colour), is that design or just so happens ?
> 2) I am used to an en translation as well. Because developers are highly
> motivated but not necessarily brilliant at end-user language)
We have a en_UK translation. But no special en_US translation. We've
been using the base strings as essentially the generic English
version. Any discrepancies are unintentional. The initial strings
are written by programmers, and most are not native English speakers.
It is perhaps worth a review of these strings for internal consistency
as well as spell checking.
> today reporting a message bug in EN leads to a code change, and in all
> other languages (incl. e.g. en-xx) it is a language issue, that seems
> overcomplicated.
>
> When we change the workflow it would be easy to add en and us as translated
> languages, and in first version they are simply copies of the source.
>
> rgds
> Jan I.
>
> On 17 October 2012 14:22, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>> combining
>> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> >
>> > Please have a look at:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>> >
>> > and
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>> >
>> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>> make
>> > a design document for a changed workflow.
>> >
>> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>> > comments will be worked into the document.
>> >
>>
>> You mention the lack of a glossary as an issue, since without one it
>> is hard to be consistent in terminology. This is true even in
>> English, with multiple developers.
>>
>> I don't know if you saw this file, but this claims to be a glossary
>> for OpenOffice UI terms:
>>
>> http://l10n.openoffice.org/localization/OpenOffice.org_en-US_Glossary.csv
>>
>>
>> Is this useful at all?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> > have a nice day.
>> > jan I
>>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks
I did not see that file, that is what I want to make available for each
language and in .po (or .xliff) format so it can be used in the editors.
Talking about en-US I have a couple of questions (which you may have
discussed in the past)
1) there are no translation to US, meaning that they are stuck with the en
version (color = colour), is that design or just so happens ?
2) I am used to an en translation as well. Because developers are highly
motivated but not necessarily brilliant at end-user language)
today reporting a message bug in EN leads to a code change, and in all
other languages (incl. e.g. en-xx) it is a language issue, that seems
overcomplicated.
When we change the workflow it would be easy to add en and us as translated
languages, and in first version they are simply copies of the source.
rgds
Jan I.
On 17 October 2012 14:22, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> combining
> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >
> > Please have a look at:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> >
> > and
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >
> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> make
> > a design document for a changed workflow.
> >
> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> > comments will be worked into the document.
> >
>
> You mention the lack of a glossary as an issue, since without one it
> is hard to be consistent in terminology. This is true even in
> English, with multiple developers.
>
> I don't know if you saw this file, but this claims to be a glossary
> for OpenOffice UI terms:
>
> http://l10n.openoffice.org/localization/OpenOffice.org_en-US_Glossary.csv
>
>
> Is this useful at all?
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > have a nice day.
> > jan I
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>
> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
> a design document for a changed workflow.
>
> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> comments will be worked into the document.
>
You mention the lack of a glossary as an issue, since without one it
is hard to be consistent in terminology. This is true even in
English, with multiple developers.
I don't know if you saw this file, but this claims to be a glossary
for OpenOffice UI terms:
http://l10n.openoffice.org/localization/OpenOffice.org_en-US_Glossary.csv
Is this useful at all?
-Rob
> have a nice day.
> jan I
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Andrea:
I just got an idea on how to split the files and keep the number low.
Would it be an idea to have 1 UI file pr directory in main (that would be
so easy to implement) and 1 Help file pr directory in helpContent2 ?
I could in addition have a build instruction in a new l10n directory,
combining some of the directories.
That would be robust and work without change when we get new source
files/directories.
rgds
JanI
On 17 October 2012 10:06, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
>
>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> Please have a look at:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/File:L10proc.pdf<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf>
>> and
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Localization_AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO>
>>
>
> Thanks, this is a great contribution. A few quick comments on the contents:
>
> - It's good to reduce the number of files. Keep in mind, though, that in
> bigger teams the most convenient way to split work is by working on
> separate files. If we manage to have about 20 files total this should be OK
> for all teams.
>
> - I wouldn't create UI and Help as two Pootle projects: it's very
> important that UI and Help translations are consistent. I understand,
> though, that some team will only translate the UI, so maybe it would be
> possible to have two different projects, so long as a volunteer can decide
> to work on Calc and easily identify Calc-relevant new strings in both
> projects.
>
> - PO vs XLIFF is a very old discussion... PO is simple and text-based. It
> has limitations but it's very easy to work with, and in this phase I would
> privilege a low entry barrier.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks.
The biggest problem with .po is that it does not contain a file reference
(the directory structure is a copy of the source structure), I can put the
path in the po file as a comment, but that is not very robust.
The translators will see no difference (apart from changing poEdit for
offline), so their barrier is the same.
Seen purely from a development perspective the time needed is about the
same.
I dont know if it is a valid point, but with xliff we get automatic support
for the status of the translation (to be done, to be reviewed, translated,
integrated...) which might be something we should use in the future (NOT as
a first step).
I have no opinion on 1 or 2 projects, that was in the old
document...logistically it is easier with just one project. However it is
easy to make 1 UI and 1 HELP file, but making like 20 might be more
difficult (which sources go where..).
thanks for your input.
jan
On 17 October 2012 10:06, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
>
>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> Please have a look at:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/File:L10proc.pdf<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf>
>> and
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Localization_AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO>
>>
>
> Thanks, this is a great contribution. A few quick comments on the contents:
>
> - It's good to reduce the number of files. Keep in mind, though, that in
> bigger teams the most convenient way to split work is by working on
> separate files. If we manage to have about 20 files total this should be OK
> for all teams.
>
> - I wouldn't create UI and Help as two Pootle projects: it's very
> important that UI and Help translations are consistent. I understand,
> though, that some team will only translate the UI, so maybe it would be
> possible to have two different projects, so long as a volunteer can decide
> to work on Calc and easily identify Calc-relevant new strings in both
> projects.
>
> - PO vs XLIFF is a very old discussion... PO is simple and text-based. It
> has limitations but it's very easy to work with, and in this phase I would
> privilege a low entry barrier.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 16/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
Thanks, this is a great contribution. A few quick comments on the contents:
- It's good to reduce the number of files. Keep in mind, though, that in
bigger teams the most convenient way to split work is by working on
separate files. If we manage to have about 20 files total this should be
OK for all teams.
- I wouldn't create UI and Help as two Pootle projects: it's very
important that UI and Help translations are consistent. I understand,
though, that some team will only translate the UI, so maybe it would be
possible to have two different projects, so long as a volunteer can
decide to work on Calc and easily identify Calc-relevant new strings in
both projects.
- PO vs XLIFF is a very old discussion... PO is simple and text-based.
It has limitations but it's very easy to work with, and in this phase I
would privilege a low entry barrier.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 17.10.2012 10:05, jan iversen wrote:
> Thanks for your support.
>
> a documentation question: do you find it a good idea to have (as in the
> document) a non-technical round-trip intended for translators etc. and then
> the deep technical round trip, or should I reduce it to just the technical
> part ?
Both parts are very valuable so I would keep both of them, but not
necessarily on the same page.
>
> Sorry for not having formulated 9.7 very clearly. It has nothing to do with
> the actual format, but with the content:
> My idea was to check for:
> - Is all messages translated
> - Has existing messages that have changed in the source code also changed
> in the translation
>
> - Is all term like e.x. "Cancel" translated to e.x. "Fortryd" in ALL
> instances (that is today not the case.
> - Is all accellerators identical, if e.g. there is a translation "F~ortryd"
> then that it is a problem it in another file it is "Fo~rtryd"
>
> I hope that makes 9.7 more understandable.
I understand and agree that it would be a good thing to have. I you can
do that then do that :-)
-Andre
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your support.
a documentation question: do you find it a good idea to have (as in the
document) a non-technical round-trip intended for translators etc. and then
the deep technical round trip, or should I reduce it to just the technical
part ?
Sorry for not having formulated 9.7 very clearly. It has nothing to do with
the actual format, but with the content:
My idea was to check for:
- Is all messages translated
- Has existing messages that have changed in the source code also changed
in the translation
- Is all term like e.x. "Cancel" translated to e.x. "Fortryd" in ALL
instances (that is today not the case.
- Is all accellerators identical, if e.g. there is a translation "F~ortryd"
then that it is a problem it in another file it is "Fo~rtryd"
I hope that makes 9.7 more understandable.
rgds
Jan I
On 17 October 2012 09:13, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16.10.2012 18:22, jan iversen wrote:
>
>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>>
>> Please have a look at:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/File:L10proc.pdf<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf>
>>
>> and
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Localization_AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO>
>>
>> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
>> a design document for a changed workflow.
>>
>> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>> comments will be worked into the document.
>>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Being the original author of the "Localization for developers" I find it
> great that you are taking the lead in this area.
>
> I like and support your proposals 9.2.1: rewrite localize_sl; 9.3.1: drop
> .sdf file format, 9.4.1: separate UI and help; 9.5.1: turn localize_sl into
> makefiles per module; 9.6.1: automatic pootle update. Having looked into
> the source code and makefiles of the localization process myself I can only
> wholeheartedly agree, that it needs a complete overhaul.
>
> I am not sure that I understand 9.7. Is this test that all new po (or
> sdf) files have a valid structure?
>
> -Andre
>
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 16.10.2012 18:22, jan iversen wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>
> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
> a design document for a changed workflow.
>
> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> comments will be worked into the document.
Hi Jan,
Being the original author of the "Localization for developers" I find it
great that you are taking the lead in this area.
I like and support your proposals 9.2.1: rewrite localize_sl; 9.3.1:
drop .sdf file format, 9.4.1: separate UI and help; 9.5.1: turn
localize_sl into makefiles per module; 9.6.1: automatic pootle update.
Having looked into the source code and makefiles of the localization
process myself I can only wholeheartedly agree, that it needs a complete
overhaul.
I am not sure that I understand 9.7. Is this test that all new po (or
sdf) files have a valid structure?
-Andre
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
On 12-10-24, at 16:03 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where can I read more about ApacheCon EU or NA ? I cannot quite follow you
> here (mainly due to terms), is this about getting sponsor money to AOO ?
http://www.apachecon.com/
No. That may be too late. It's about asking via the lists for your work to have a hearing among those present and a discussion if they are willing and able to have that. The reason for this: simply to get the work you are doing the investigation it merits.
>
> It should be easy to get somebody from EU and others, I could call on the
> NLC to help QA and general testing.
Yes; something like that to promote the workflow reappraisal. We at OOo went through this numerous times but not enough, probably, and it was always layered with corporate expectations, and these rubbed against community interests. (A good case being the RU localization of the early 2000s.)
Best
Louis
>
> jan.
>
>
>
> On 24 October 2012 21:53, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12-10-24, at 14:35 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> May I politely ask if there are other comments or more importantly
>>> objections ?
>>
>> Press on. And expect to be patient: this is a volunteer effort. I
>
> 'd also, if I were you, see about highlighting this effort at ApacheCon EU
>> or NA (next year). If you cannot personally make the EU event, you can ask
>> a surrogate, perhaps. But the issue is indeed very important, at least as I
>> see it. For it leads to expanding the AOO contributor base, being that
>> localization efforts are among the most interesting to a range of
>> audiences, who rightly see a localized AOO as much easier to work with than
>> one in English.
>>
>>>
>>> If not I will continue with the process and keep you posted, please
>>> remember comments are also welcome as the new workflow takes shape.
>>
>> Please! also, don't hesitate to use other channels, such as Facebook, our
>> wikis, etc.
>>
>> best
>> louis
>>
>>>
>>> Jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 October 2012 20:18, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your kind words.
>>>>
>>>> see below please:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 October 2012 19:49, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>>>>> combining
>>>>>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to
>>>>> Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please have a look at:
>>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>>>>> make
>>>>>> a design document for a changed workflow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail.
>> These
>>>>>> comments will be worked into the document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have a nice day.
>>>>>> jan I
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my
>> impression
>>>>> is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome,
>> incorporating
>>>>> input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can
>> be
>>>>> expected to continue on into the future.
>>>>>
>>>> It was a big job, first describing the current process and run it
>> several
>>>> times to make sure I understood it, and then think about how to do more
>>>> robust and future oriented. I have had a helping hand from my
>> professional
>>>> background where I used to manage project with these kind of
>> problemsets.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate any input, this is a floating process,
>>>> development/discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice
>>>>> team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people
>> at
>>>>> that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing
>> issues
>>>>> foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by
>> political
>>>>> considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of
>> people
>>>>> like you.
>>>>>
>>>> I am very open minded to that respect, but honestly I have no idea what
>>>> the apache policy is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Got it, I did not think of the upcoming meeting.
I think it is too early for that (maybe somebody has opinions??) I would
like to present it, when it is ready to be launched...I dont like to
present "hot air" :-)
But as I understood it there is another conference early next year, that
would be just perfect.
jan.
On 24 October 2012 22:08, Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> more information about ApacheCon can be found here:
> http://www.apachecon.eu/
>
> Am 24.10.2012 22:03, schrieb jan iversen:
>
> Where can I read more about ApacheCon EU or NA ? I cannot quite follow you
>> here (mainly due to terms), is this about getting sponsor money to AOO ?
>>
>> It should be easy to get somebody from EU and others, I could call on the
>> NLC to help QA and general testing.
>>
>
> Kind regards, Joost
>
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi Jan,
more information about ApacheCon can be found here:
http://www.apachecon.eu/
Am 24.10.2012 22:03, schrieb jan iversen:
> Where can I read more about ApacheCon EU or NA ? I cannot quite follow you
> here (mainly due to terms), is this about getting sponsor money to AOO ?
>
> It should be easy to get somebody from EU and others, I could call on the
> NLC to help QA and general testing.
Kind regards, Joost
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Where can I read more about ApacheCon EU or NA ? I cannot quite follow you
here (mainly due to terms), is this about getting sponsor money to AOO ?
It should be easy to get somebody from EU and others, I could call on the
NLC to help QA and general testing.
jan.
On 24 October 2012 21:53, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12-10-24, at 14:35 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > May I politely ask if there are other comments or more importantly
> > objections ?
>
> Press on. And expect to be patient: this is a volunteer effort. I
'd also, if I were you, see about highlighting this effort at ApacheCon EU
> or NA (next year). If you cannot personally make the EU event, you can ask
> a surrogate, perhaps. But the issue is indeed very important, at least as I
> see it. For it leads to expanding the AOO contributor base, being that
> localization efforts are among the most interesting to a range of
> audiences, who rightly see a localized AOO as much easier to work with than
> one in English.
>
> >
> > If not I will continue with the process and keep you posted, please
> > remember comments are also welcome as the new workflow takes shape.
>
> Please! also, don't hesitate to use other channels, such as Facebook, our
> wikis, etc.
>
> best
> louis
>
> >
> > Jan I.
> >
> >
> > On 24 October 2012 20:18, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your kind words.
> >>
> >> see below please:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 October 2012 19:49, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jan,
> >>>
> >>> On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> >>> combining
> >>>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >>>>
> >>> Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to
> >>> Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
> >>>
> >>>> Please have a look at:
> >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> >>> Indeed.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> >>> make
> >>>> a design document for a changed workflow.
> >>>>
> >>>> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail.
> These
> >>>> comments will be worked into the document.
> >>>>
> >>>> have a nice day.
> >>>> jan I
> >>>
> >>> I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my
> impression
> >>> is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome,
> incorporating
> >>> input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can
> be
> >>> expected to continue on into the future.
> >>>
> >> It was a big job, first describing the current process and run it
> several
> >> times to make sure I understood it, and then think about how to do more
> >> robust and future oriented. I have had a helping hand from my
> professional
> >> background where I used to manage project with these kind of
> problemsets.
> >>
> >> I would appreciate any input, this is a floating process,
> >> development/discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice
> >>> team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people
> at
> >>> that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing
> issues
> >>> foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by
> political
> >>> considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of
> people
> >>> like you.
> >>>
> >> I am very open minded to that respect, but honestly I have no idea what
> >> the apache policy is.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Louis
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
On 12-10-24, at 14:35 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> May I politely ask if there are other comments or more importantly
> objections ?
Press on. And expect to be patient: this is a volunteer effort. I'd also, if I were you, see about highlighting this effort at ApacheCon EU or NA (next year). If you cannot personally make the EU event, you can ask a surrogate, perhaps. But the issue is indeed very important, at least as I see it. For it leads to expanding the AOO contributor base, being that localization efforts are among the most interesting to a range of audiences, who rightly see a localized AOO as much easier to work with than one in English.
>
> If not I will continue with the process and keep you posted, please
> remember comments are also welcome as the new workflow takes shape.
Please! also, don't hesitate to use other channels, such as Facebook, our wikis, etc.
best
louis
>
> Jan I.
>
>
> On 24 October 2012 20:18, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your kind words.
>>
>> see below please:
>>
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 19:49, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
>>> On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>>> combining
>>>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>>>>
>>> Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to
>>> Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
>>>
>>>> Please have a look at:
>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>>>>
>>>> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>>> make
>>>> a design document for a changed workflow.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>>>> comments will be worked into the document.
>>>>
>>>> have a nice day.
>>>> jan I
>>>
>>> I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my impression
>>> is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome, incorporating
>>> input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can be
>>> expected to continue on into the future.
>>>
>> It was a big job, first describing the current process and run it several
>> times to make sure I understood it, and then think about how to do more
>> robust and future oriented. I have had a helping hand from my professional
>> background where I used to manage project with these kind of problemsets.
>>
>> I would appreciate any input, this is a floating process,
>> development/discussion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice
>>> team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people at
>>> that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing issues
>>> foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by political
>>> considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of people
>>> like you.
>>>
>> I am very open minded to that respect, but honestly I have no idea what
>> the apache policy is.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
May I politely ask if there are other comments or more importantly
objections ?
If not I will continue with the process and keep you posted, please
remember comments are also welcome as the new workflow takes shape.
Jan I.
On 24 October 2012 20:18, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your kind words.
>
> see below please:
>
>
> On 24 October 2012 19:49, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>> combining
>> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> >
>> Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to
>> Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
>>
>> > Please have a look at:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>> Indeed.
>>
>> >
>> > and
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>> >
>> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>> make
>> > a design document for a changed workflow.
>> >
>> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>> > comments will be worked into the document.
>> >
>> > have a nice day.
>> > jan I
>>
>> I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my impression
>> is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome, incorporating
>> input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can be
>> expected to continue on into the future.
>>
> It was a big job, first describing the current process and run it several
> times to make sure I understood it, and then think about how to do more
> robust and future oriented. I have had a helping hand from my professional
> background where I used to manage project with these kind of problemsets.
>
> I would appreciate any input, this is a floating process,
> development/discussion.
>
>
>>
>> A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice
>> team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people at
>> that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing issues
>> foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by political
>> considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of people
>> like you.
>>
> I am very open minded to that respect, but honestly I have no idea what
> the apache policy is.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Louis
>
>
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your kind words.
see below please:
On 24 October 2012 19:49, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> combining
> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >
> Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to
> Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
>
> > Please have a look at:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> Indeed.
>
> >
> > and
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >
> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> make
> > a design document for a changed workflow.
> >
> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> > comments will be worked into the document.
> >
> > have a nice day.
> > jan I
>
> I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my impression
> is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome, incorporating
> input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can be
> expected to continue on into the future.
>
It was a big job, first describing the current process and run it several
times to make sure I understood it, and then think about how to do more
robust and future oriented. I have had a helping hand from my professional
background where I used to manage project with these kind of problemsets.
I would appreciate any input, this is a floating process,
development/discussion.
>
> A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice
> team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people at
> that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing issues
> foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by political
> considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of people
> like you.
>
I am very open minded to that respect, but honestly I have no idea what the
apache policy is.
>
> Thanks
> Louis
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan,
On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>
Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
Indeed.
>
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>
> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
> a design document for a changed workflow.
>
> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> comments will be worked into the document.
>
> have a nice day.
> jan I
I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my impression is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome, incorporating input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can be expected to continue on into the future.
A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people at that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing issues foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by political considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of people like you.
Thanks
Louis
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan,
On 12-10-16, at 12:22 , jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>
Thanks. A lot of work. Last it was dealt with was probably (prior to Apache's advent) back in…. I hate to say, "last century."
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
Indeed.
>
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>
> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
> a design document for a changed workflow.
>
> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> comments will be worked into the document.
>
> have a nice day.
> jan I
I'll go over it. Usually, as others no doubt will mention, my impression is that a big issue has always been qualifying the outcome, incorporating input, and normalizing it, so that what happens in, say, January, can be expected to continue on into the future.
A sidle point has perhaps also do with working with the LibreOffice team—and others working using similar strings, e.g., those nice people at that Mozilla project, among others. Under the Sun regime, licensing issues foreclosed that option. I'd hate to think we are still hobbled by political considerations and that these undercut the terrific enterprise of people like you.
Thanks
Louis
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
I have in the meantime understood the request.
Now the document is available under wiki as:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
and also as pdf.
best of two worlds.
jan
On 16 October 2012 22:53, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
> > On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry for asking but what is ML discussions ?
> >
> > Mailing list archives. This emails are publicly available on the web.
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-l10n/
> >
> >>
> >> I will happely update information, but I would prefer to delay it until
> we
> >> have decided which way to go, once that is decided I will make a wiki
> page
> >> with the new workflow.
> >
> > MM this is why wikis are for, anything you put at this time, is mrore
> > updated than whatever is already there (most info is from 2009). So
> > the next agreement round will need to update the info over yours, as
> > opposed of over people from 2009.
> >
>
> I think it is fine to review the PDF. It is a compact, succinct,
> self-contained description of the process. It makes it easy to
> review.
>
> After we agree on what the process is we can figure out where to put it.
>
> The problem we have is that the wiki currently has an elaborate
> process that was supported by Sun employees that are no longer here
> and servers and permission sets that no longer apply to us. So that
> process is not necessarily the same as we'll have going forward.
>
> But I certainly agree that we need to do something to the wiki. On
> the other hand it could be a good opportunity to simplify.
>
> -Rob
>
> -Rob
>
>
> >>
> >> jan.
> >>
> >> On 16 October 2012 20:36, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> >>> combining
> >>> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >>> >
> >>> > Please have a look at:
> >>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > and
> >>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >>> >
> >>> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> >>> make
> >>> > a design document for a changed workflow.
> >>>
> >>> I think some of this information needs to be pushed back to the
> >>> Localization page:
> >>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization
> >>>
> >>> Including external links to the ML key dicussions and updating
> >>> relevant pages mentioned here.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail.
> These
> >>> > comments will be worked into the document.
> >>> >
> >>> > have a nice day.
> >>> > jan I
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Alexandro Colorado
> >>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> >>> http://es.openoffice.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexandro Colorado
> > PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> > http://es.openoffice.org
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
> On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry for asking but what is ML discussions ?
>
> Mailing list archives. This emails are publicly available on the web.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-l10n/
>
>>
>> I will happely update information, but I would prefer to delay it until we
>> have decided which way to go, once that is decided I will make a wiki page
>> with the new workflow.
>
> MM this is why wikis are for, anything you put at this time, is mrore
> updated than whatever is already there (most info is from 2009). So
> the next agreement round will need to update the info over yours, as
> opposed of over people from 2009.
>
I think it is fine to review the PDF. It is a compact, succinct,
self-contained description of the process. It makes it easy to
review.
After we agree on what the process is we can figure out where to put it.
The problem we have is that the wiki currently has an elaborate
process that was supported by Sun employees that are no longer here
and servers and permission sets that no longer apply to us. So that
process is not necessarily the same as we'll have going forward.
But I certainly agree that we need to do something to the wiki. On
the other hand it could be a good opportunity to simplify.
-Rob
-Rob
>>
>> jan.
>>
>> On 16 October 2012 20:36, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>>> combining
>>> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
>>> >
>>> > Please have a look at:
>>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>>> >
>>> > and
>>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>>> >
>>> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>>> make
>>> > a design document for a changed workflow.
>>>
>>> I think some of this information needs to be pushed back to the
>>> Localization page:
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization
>>>
>>> Including external links to the ML key dicussions and updating
>>> relevant pages mentioned here.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>>> > comments will be worked into the document.
>>> >
>>> > have a nice day.
>>> > jan I
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexandro Colorado
>>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
>>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> http://es.openoffice.org
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for asking but what is ML discussions ?
Mailing list archives. This emails are publicly available on the web.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-l10n/
>
> I will happely update information, but I would prefer to delay it until we
> have decided which way to go, once that is decided I will make a wiki page
> with the new workflow.
MM this is why wikis are for, anything you put at this time, is mrore
updated than whatever is already there (most info is from 2009). So
the next agreement round will need to update the info over yours, as
opposed of over people from 2009.
>
> jan.
>
> On 16 October 2012 20:36, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
>> combining
>> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> >
>> > Please have a look at:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>> >
>> > and
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>> >
>> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
>> make
>> > a design document for a changed workflow.
>>
>> I think some of this information needs to be pushed back to the
>> Localization page:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization
>>
>> Including external links to the ML key dicussions and updating
>> relevant pages mentioned here.
>>
>> >
>> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>> > comments will be worked into the document.
>> >
>> > have a nice day.
>> > jan I
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexandro Colorado
>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for asking but what is ML discussions ?
I will happely update information, but I would prefer to delay it until we
have decided which way to go, once that is decided I will make a wiki page
with the new workflow.
jan.
On 16 October 2012 20:36, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
> On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also
> combining
> > all the notes on open issues I could find.
> >
> > Please have a look at:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
> >
> > and
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
> >
> > I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will
> make
> > a design document for a changed workflow.
>
> I think some of this information needs to be pushed back to the
> Localization page:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization
>
> Including external links to the ML key dicussions and updating
> relevant pages mentioned here.
>
> >
> > I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> > comments will be worked into the document.
> >
> > have a nice day.
> > jan I
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On 10/16/12, jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>
> Please have a look at:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf
>
> and
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO
>
> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
> a design document for a changed workflow.
I think some of this information needs to be pushed back to the
Localization page:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization
Including external links to the ML key dicussions and updating
relevant pages mentioned here.
>
> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
> comments will be worked into the document.
>
> have a nice day.
> jan I
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org