Re: Multi-language to be or not to be

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:51:34AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 12. Februar 2007 10:36 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
> > A .po file is easier than a plaintext file?
> 
> Definitely.
> 
> > Well, I'm don't do much 
> > translating myself, but I can't see how translating a webpage can be
> > easier than translating the actual text of the webpage in the file...
> 
> One advantage is that it is disassociated from the particulars of the source 
> format and the details of how to get it and how to send it back.  Another 
> advantage is that there is an established and powerful toolset for editing, 
> merging, and managing translations.

That's actually an argument *for* ripping out the current translation
infrastructure. Because if we want to use .po and related tools, we need
a complete rewrite of it.
(Today, you edit the templated HTML which comes down to a plaintext
file, but the entire system depends on being able to parse it as a
template)


> > Well, I stand by that opinion. I know for examlpe pgAdmin only ships
> > translations that are n percent or better (iirc, it's 85% or so), which
> > makes it reasonable. Shipping something that only has 15% translation
> > rate does the user a disservice, imho.
> 
> It's one thing to reject web *pages* that are less than 85% or even 100% 
> translated.  But no one can require a 85% or 100% translated web *site*.  Not 
> even Microsoft or IBM can manage that.

I'm not saying reject <100%. I'm saying reject 15%.

Oh, and the fact that MS for example can't do it is one of the reasons
that *everybody* I know in Sweden goes to the US site and not the
Swedish one.
And I also notice that they are *separate* sites, and *not* just
translations of the same site...

//Magnus