Translation scope

l10n
#1

Hello,

I wonder several things about localizing LO:

1) Have latest sdf files from OOo for 3.3 been used for LO? Have there been
any additional changes to the OOo en-US SDF file for 3.3 made specifically
for LO 3.3 (not counting the lo-build.po)? If so, where can I get the en-US
file to update Slovenian sdf?

2) The lo-build.po(t) file mentions several extensions, that are not
included into OOo 3.3, but seem to be included into LO. Is that true? If so,
does that mean that localizers must localize every single of those
extensions to make LO fully localized? If so, what is the list of those
included extensions, where are respective po files (I have localized all OOo
extensions included in the OOo SDF file and the LT extension, but where can
others be found)? Do we have to contact respective extension developers to
get them localized in LO? If so, isn't that a bit awkward? What is the
deadline for translating these extensions for 3.3?

Maybe answers to these questions could be posted on the wiki or somewhere
else where localization of LO is explained.

Thanks,
m.

#2

1) Have latest sdf files from OOo for 3.3 been used for LO?

Yes. However, corrections to these can be submitted.

Have there been
any additional changes to the OOo en-US SDF file for 3.3 made specifically
for LO 3.3 (not counting the lo-build.po)?

Yes. The feaure freeze was yesterday (it was the plan, at least). The
lo-build.pot is not up to date.

If so, where can I get the en-US
file to update Slovenian sdf?

I'll prepare one for myself today, I can share it with you. However,
everybody will get it next week, I suppose...

2) The lo-build.po(t) file mentions several extensions, that are not
included into OOo 3.3, but seem to be included into LO. Is that true?

Yes, it's true.

If so,
does that mean that localizers must localize every single of those
extensions to make LO fully localized?

No, not all patches/extensions are integrated. Some will never be
integrated. You can check your localized betas when they will be
available, and decide it for yourself.

If so, what is the list of those
included extensions, where are respective po files (I have localized all OOo
extensions included in the OOo SDF file and the LT extension, but where can
others be found)? Do we have to contact respective extension developers to
get them localized in LO? If so, isn't that a bit awkward? What is the
deadline for translating these extensions for 3.3?

Currently none of the extensions are integrated in dev builds, I
think. At least I did not find any in my fresh build. Some of them
part of the source code (Presentation Minimizer, PDF Export,
Presentation Console etc) so you probably have them translated. Some
are little of interest in your language (Lightproof, Hunart). You
should probably localize Numbertext and Watchwindow.

Maybe answers to these questions could be posted on the wiki or somewhere
else where localization of LO is explained.

I expect that all these issues will be clarified in the next few days.
I read somewhere - maybe in SC meeting minutes - that André and Petr
Mladek were working on this and would come up with a plan soon.

Cheers,
Andras

#3

Hi,

1) Have latest sdf files from OOo for 3.3 been used for LO?

Yes. However, corrections to these can be submitted.

Not fully correct - the sdf files used in the beta builds have not been the latest. Kendy merged the latest sdf from OOo repository last week, so if you do your own build (or wait for next beta) you'll see the latest translations from OOo.

Have there been
any additional changes to the OOo en-US SDF file for 3.3 made specifically
for LO 3.3 (not counting the lo-build.po)?

Yes. The feaure freeze was yesterday (it was the plan, at least). The
lo-build.pot is not up to date.

Well the question was if there have been changes to the "OOo sdf" files. The answer on this would be : no.
We use sdf files es in OOo (330_m10).

But we already have several people asking to have some late fixes for these (localized) sdf files. I think, we can target these requests when Petr is back from vacation.

For all the rest, Andras' answers were accurate :slight_smile:

regards,

André

#4

André Schnabel píše v So 30. 10. 2010 v 18:06 +0200:

Hi,

>> 1) Have latest sdf files from OOo for 3.3 been used for LO?
> Yes. However, corrections to these can be submitted.

Not fully correct - the sdf files used in the beta builds have not been
the latest. Kendy merged the latest sdf from OOo repository last week,
so if you do your own build (or wait for next beta) you'll see the
latest translations from OOo.

>> Have there been
>> any additional changes to the OOo en-US SDF file for 3.3 made specifically
>> for LO 3.3 (not counting the lo-build.po)?
> Yes. The feaure freeze was yesterday (it was the plan, at least). The
> lo-build.pot is not up to date.

Well the question was if there have been changes to the "OOo sdf" files.
The answer on this would be : no.
We use sdf files es in OOo (330_m10).

But we already have several people asking to have some late fixes for
these (localized) sdf files. I think, we can target these requests when
Petr is back from vacation.

Well, if we are careful we could commit changes to the
libreoffice/l10n/l10n/sources/*/localize.sdf files even for LibO-3.3.

Though, we should make sure that the committed file has the same format:
  + use standard string modification date 2002-02-02 02:02:02
  + use linux end of lines
  + ...

By other words, we should modify only the lines that are really
modified. Otherwise, the repository would grow unbelievable fast. Also
it would break merging of changes from the OOo sources.

Alternative solution (preferred for OOo-3.3):

+ put the modified strings into extra sdf file and commit to
  libreoffice/build/src/sdf

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: Of course, we need to find more clever strategy after LibO-3.3.

#5

Hi Petr,

PS: Of course, we need to find more clever strategy after LibO-3.3.

Yes - get rid of .sdf :wink: - it is just terrible for _any_ SCM.

Regards,
Kendy

#6

I like sdf.

LP, m.