Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693BA9FB2A2 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:34:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11545-05 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:34:05 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE509FB231 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:34:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0F7DCC519; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:34:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E2D1CDCC51D; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:34:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:34:03 +0100 From: Magnus Hagander To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, Adrian Maier Subject: Re: Multi-language to be or not to be Message-ID: <20070212113403.GA5628@svr2.hagander.net> References: <45CF18A1.1090903@hagander.net> <200702121016.11272.peter_e@gmx.net> <20070212093602.GF4432@svr2.hagander.net> <200702121151.36608.peter_e@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702121151.36608.peter_e@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.132 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200702/187 X-Sequence-Number: 11592 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