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

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Translation Methods comparsion
From:       Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano () tiscali ! it>
Date:       2013-04-01 15:43:41
Message-ID: 5159AB2D.20205 () tiscali ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Luigi Toscano, 01/04/2013 17:14:
>>> Could you clarify what you mean *exactly* by "checking the translations"?
>>
>> When Italian translators without commit rights send me a translation, I *at
>> least* read it to check for common mistakes,
> 
> Sorry if I insist: what sort of common mistakes, exactly?
> For instance, there can't be anything breaking your PO files coming from TWN.
> I also know that, currently, TWN admins give a cursory sanity check on export.

I was just explaining the usual process. I know that many checks can be
automated, but:

>> but also because if I'm going to
>> commit it, I'm somehow responsible for it.
> 
> This seems more a byproduct than an aim in itself: you're responsible because
> the translators can't take all responsibility on themselves for technical
> obstacles; what's important is probably that *someone* is responsible and able
> of preventing and fixing mistakes. If, however, the aim is having a single
> gatekeeper for translations, well surely it's another matter; is this the point?

The aim is having an (experienced) reviewer, who is knows to the system, to
take responsibility for translation coming from users who are not known to the
system.
This applies also to experienced translators, as it happens that "old"
translators send me the translations not because they would not be able to use
svn and the tools to merge, but also because they want a review. It is even
more important for new translators.



> 
>> I could even check if the
>> translation was not done using, for example, google translator (which wouldbe
>> a violation of a number of terms of usage - and no, it's not something that
>> can't happen...)
> 
> This would probably be not so hard to do. If you can provide (and agree upon)
> a concrete list of validation features like this that you consider *required*
> for any translation tool, it's possible to work on them.

And no, sometimes not all checks can be automated.


>> This is "checking the translations" for me.
>>
>> If, as it seems, "a TWN admin" automagically performs the commit to the KDE
>> repository, this step will be missing, and I don't think it's doable.
>>
>> If only translation reviewed or anyway approved by a known translator are
>> going it, it's a different story.
> 
> Personally, I'm unable to answer meaningfully before the premises above are
> clarified, so let me leave this for later.

No anonymous or unknown (new translators) contributions going in without
approval. That's my summary.

Regards
-- 
Luigi

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