![]() Thus, having one package per language would make for a paramount waste of digital space. On the contrary, in an average application, like a file manager or a web browser, the translatable text is a minuscule part of the total size of installation package. However, the bulk of a PDF file is the text itself, so there is almost no needless duplication of language-independent content. So, like in the case of PDF files, where in the end there must be one per language, there would also be one application package for each language. Following the same poor pipeline, the translator may translate that text file, replacing string after string, after which another installation package is built, this time a localized one. How does this map onto a translated user interface in an application, which has live code running in the background? For starters, we can be unimaginative and follow the static route: the programmer may keep all the user interface text strings in a text file, which gets built into the application executable files when the installation package is built. While the example pipeline was not appropriate, even with the proper pipeline the output for the end user must be a static translated document, such as PDF file or another HTML page. The previous example was about static translation, such as of a text document or an HTML page. ![]() But before explaining why it is wrong, and therefore not at all used in free software translation, let us cover more hypothetical ground. This pipeline is, incidentally, the one which most people seem to imagine before they get involved in localization for real. the user gets to read the translated document, in PDF, as output by Writer.Ĭlean and simple, everyone is happy, right? Wrong (you guessed it).the translator gets that document, and translates it also in Writer, by replacing original for translated text paragraph by paragraph.the author prepares a text document, say, in OpenOffice Writer.Let us call this chain the translation pipeline, and consider the following example of it: Before going into technical details of the PO (or any other) format, it is useful to examine the conceptual ways in which the text can flow from the author, through the translator, and to the user.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |