Re: [ESD-translators] state of the template manager -- kitchen

[Thérèse Godefroy]

Hi Tomas, hi everyone,

Le 27/03/2016 10:15, Stary, Tomas a écrit :
> Hi Thérèse, everyone,
> 
> I'm new in the translations, so I don't exactly know how does it work
> in other projects.
> 
> The system you suggest seems quite convenient to me. If I understand
> it correctly it can not only deal with the text repeated on multiple
> pages, but also addresses the updates in the original page, which
> would be great for the translations of the future updates of the
> original text.
> 
> Is it an automatic procedure to generate the POT files for the
> project? I have found that xgettext can be used to get the strings to
> be translated from the programs source files, but xgettext does not
> support html.

You are right, gettext can't extract strings from HTML. For that, you
need PO4A [0] (a sort of wrapper around gettext tools, which only works
on strict XHTML by the way). Sorry I wasn't specific enough in my
previous post.

To create a POT file, you only need one command (e.g. po4a-gettextize
without specifying a translation). This can be automated, of course, but
I don't think we have new files often enough to make it worthwhile. On
the other hand, it may be worthwhile to automate updating the POTs and
the POs.


> In my previous comment I was only the concerned about the text
> repeated on multiple pages, which complicates the translation and
> corrections of translated text.
> 
> In my naive view this could be solved simply by splitting the
> documents into a number of template pages based on the criteria of
> text repetitions. The template files could be then concatenated
> together to generate the target page, such that the files with the
> repeated text would be reused.

This is what Raffael is doing, I believe. It works fine too.


> I would probably choose to do this task using Makefile script as it is
> what I am most familiar with. However, regarding the splitting into
> template pages, I can only think of a manual way of doing it.

If the splitting is done only once, that's OK. But our problem is that
so far Zak has been providing the complete pages, not the pieces.  So,
we have to find out which pieces have been modified, and update the
corresponding translations. I make colored diffs to visualize the
changes but in my experience it's not foolproof. POs are more reliable.

I'm not familiar with makefiles. Would you help with that?
Getting closer and closer to GNUN [1]... ;-)

> Best,
> 
> Tomas

Best,
Thérèse

[0] http://dev.man-online.org/man7/po4a/
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/trans-coord/manual/gnun/gnun.html