[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L10n deserves to be systematized

From: Fernando Botelho
Subject: Re: L10n deserves to be systematized
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:37:53 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

"Maybe. But I'd focus on the GNU/FOSS translations groups that already exist in the various languages."

Ok, i will do some searching around. But if you are aware of l10n groups for Portuguese, Spanish, or Arabic, please let me know.


On 05/05/2017 06:29 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Apologies Jean-Christophe. I did not mean to imply that I had learned nothing 
from the interaction on the list. It is clear to me that the usual translation 
of interface, etc, is beyond our current resources.
I was not suggesting that, don't worry :)

This is what I was suggesting. A list focused on Emacs translation rather than 
coding. But like the github issue, we will need a GNU-approved host.
Not really. What we need is to have a process that produces good translations 
and then a way to deliver the translations that is compatible with the GNU 

 From Eli:
"Not sure why the mailing list is not in the CC."
In CC here.

The Lisp reference manual is for programmers, and those usually have a much better 
control of English."
That's a common misconception.

Programmers rely first on ressources in their language and then try to make 
sense of the rest. In the case of the Emacs/Elisp manuals the rest is a very 
verbose set of files and is in fact quite difficult to make sense of when 
you're not a native.

"I would propose to focus on the user manual.
In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Emacs has already a huge volume of 
introductory and advanced materials on the web and in print and is thus quite 
accessible for non English speakers.

The Elisp reference is simply not that widely available.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier mail, translators are generally good 
proofreaders. They can find a lot of errors, inconsistencies, hard to 
understand parts, etc. and translation directly contributes to native's access 
to a better documentation.

But in the end, it really is up to the translators to decide what they want to 
work on.

I am still not sure what I will be using. OmegaT uses Java, and being blind, I 
have had bad experiences with that in the past. So I will have to check and see 
if it is accessible. I will ask a blind translators list I heard of.
I've had a lot of exchanges with people on the Librté 0 list and it seems 
OmegaT is not very accessible. But there are other tools. Emacs and its po-mode 
are very basic, so it's better to look for other native tools for your platform.

In any case, setting up the git repository and email list, and announcing it on 
the Emacs lists can attract some attention and possibly other translators.
Maybe. But I'd focus on the GNU/FOSS translations groups that already exist in 
the various languages.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]