On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM, "Sankarshan (সঙ্কর্ষণ)"
<sank...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the reasonably detailed response.
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
What we are about to develop is a new way of doing localisation
repositories
and workflow, more similar to what happens in many commercial tools than
what
we see in open source communities. I feel a bit 'uneasy' about pushing that
onto the Tx roadmap at this stage, and also uneasy about developing such a
'workflow system' in Turbogears.
Since this mail was on Tx-devel, for a moment I assumed it alluded to
enhancing or, extending the functionality of Tx.
Now that you mention that this is a separate effort, I guess the context
is somewhat clear.
Feature-wise, it is much more interesting to compare with e.g. Idiom
WorldServer and Lionbridge Freeway, which are commercial solutions in the
L10N
space.
Yes, but what you write is a summary. The query I had was - is the
result of the evaluation of the current state-of-the-nation projected on
a future-proposed-state-of-the-nation available for read. A detail
evaluation/assessment report that is.
This is knowledge we have acquired internally by members of our team over a
long period of time, rather than a requirements-based systematic evaluation of
these projects. I for one have e.g. been monitoring e.g. how Translate Toolkit
as well as Gnome, KDE, Mozilla and OO.org L10N communities have evolved over
the last 3-4 years. Seeing the increasing 'gap' between state-of-the art in
this area and current practices, it was not a rocket-science decision (now
that we finally have the resources to do something about it). But I fully see
your point, a document or white-paper outlining this would be very useful, and
something I will investigate if we could provide as the plans go further.
cheers,
asgeir
11 messages in com.redhat.fedora-infrastructure-listRe: Planning a future L10N infrastruc...
