[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Internationalization
From:       "R.F. Pels" <ruurd () tiscali ! nl>
Date:       2005-05-21 1:47:39
Message-ID: 200505210347.41618.ruurd () tiscali ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 21 May 2005 02.24, Tom Welch wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback.  Let me respond to a few of your comments for
> clarification.
>
>    1. I'm not asking for everyone to give up their current translation
>       efforts and use IRMA.  If you want to help out with IRMA feel free
>       but in no way am I trying to say that IRMA is how everything
>       should be translated.  I'm simply asking for feedback on the tool
>       and more importantly if people want our translations back.

I understand that.

>    2. We looked at what had been done already with KDE and, although it
>       is a lot, was not enough to create complete translations.  We
>       built IRMA to handle things that can't be done easily with
>       kbabel.    IRMA will support docbook, HTML, PO files, desktop
>       files, xliff files, image files, sound files (things like audio
>       tutorials), etc.

Again. What I feel here is that it is a pity that Linspire did not expand on 
what is/was already there. 

>    3. With IRMA anyone with a browser can help out.  With kbabel you
>       have to learn and understand a lot more.  We felt to get
>       participation from our customers we were better off using a browser.

I can understand that too, however, I think that makes it much more difficult 
for those that cannot rely on good connectivity in technical or financial 
terms. This means IMHO that IRMA is much less usable for example in third 
world countries, i.e. countries that must rely on 'classic' modems for their 
connectivity, while at the same time people in those countries are very much 
interested in systems that can be obtained at a far lower cost than 
others :-)

> I'm not trying to promote IRMA as much as I'm trying to offer our work
> back.  

Well, that /is/ welcome. And in that respect, I think Rinse's idea to set up 
communication between l10n managers at Linspire and key players in 
translation teams is very valuable. This also means that it would be valuable 
to try and add links to documentation regarding translations as one can find 
on http://www.kde.nl/. Translation teams, and certainly the one I participate 
in take QA very seriously.

> But thanks for the feedback.  My take away from your comments 
> were that you think we are re-inventing the wheel, 

See my remarks on item 2. As an elaboration, I think there are good tools 
available but that does not imply that they can be improved upon. Yes, an 
operation mode more geared towards the less computer savvy would be nice. 
Yes, probably docbook support is nice. Being able to handle graphics and 
sound in a consistent way in translation tools is a good thing. Being able to 
do workflow would be nice. I would have loved to see such functionality in 
KBabel. That is why I think it is a pity that Linspire took the route of 
implementing their own version of translation tools instead of choosing a 
different approach. I used the term 're-inventing the wheel', which might 
have been a bit harsh.

> don't like that it is not open source, 

I'll elaborate on that. I think I gave a couple of valid reasons. It's not 
exactly dislike, I think IRMA would be more valuable if people were not 
forced to submit to a license. Absence of such a license might make using 
IRMA more 'palatable' to people that might have problems with such a license. 
In addition, the longevity and pace of development or IRMA might benefit from 
opensourcing it.

> feel that you already have QA in place. 

The Dutch translation team /does/ have that. And I feel that QA in this 
respect is not only dependent on having the proper tools. Having the right 
people that can muster the effort and have that particular knack of precision 
and endurance to make it happen is very very important.

Mind you, I did not have the intention of putting IRMA down. I think it has 
features that would be welcome in KBabel too. However, I think the situation 
that exists now is suboptimal:

- users are 'drawn away' from the regular translation teams while many of
  them could use an influx of contributors
- there are two translation tools now that are not yet integrated
- there are two parties that do QA
- there are two parties that do management and coordination of the 
  translation efforts.

I think however that 'offering back' at least alleviates the first problem, 
which is a good thing. That does not mitigate the fact that Linspire and the 
translation teams still have other problems to solve: integration on the 
software level and possibly a change in QA and coordination responsibilities.

-- 
R.F. Pels,  3e Rompert 118,  5233 AL  's-Hertogenbosch,  The Netherlands
+31736414590       ruurd@tiscali.nl        http://home.tiscali.nl/~ruurd

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]