If I’m correct the latest COOL version introduced some improvements to the GUI.
While translating these new strings I was realising that there are conventions to follow, or… to deviate from.
Is there a general rule re. Collabora gui translation? Are we to strictly follow LO, or can we take MS Office as inspiration, and are we allowed to deviate from these?
COOL over MS Office:
Edit: I’ve just corrected the discrepancies re. Layout and Format. (Layout = Indeling, Format = Opmaak)
We formally follow LibreOffice translations first. I remeber this was pointed out in the translation faq before, but can’t find it anymore so it may be changed @andras.timar? Think we need to keep in mind there are (paying) customers that may use both LO/CO classic and CO Online like as part of openDesk and other commercial integrations; few of my customers use Opentext Filr for example.
As we are both working on Dutch translation lets get in touch to discuss recent changes, using style, wording etc. I tend to not make large changes and add my comments to the comment discuss section when possible case we follow certain translation for a readson.
The recent changes in the GUI make the translation mapping IMO a bit dificult. These less nicely map to what LO (or even MS Office) is using in comparison and for translation using the English words in Dutch on par with the translation source vs using localized words which may have multiple meanings and may conflict in other areas of the translations. For example I on purpose had not translated “Layout” to a “local” Dutch (mind layout is also in the Dutch wordbook) word to stay away of the changes you now run into like:
The first tab “Indeling” is on par with LO translation of the tab. I believe that is a bug in the LO translation, for which I remever filing an issue, as the menu holding most of the buttons is translated as “Opmaak” too.
The LO translations to Dutch are not alway consistent in how they use words. That also is true for MS Office.
I would suggest if @andras.timar agrees we make a list of words we will work from. If those do not match the LO words we make an enhancement request/translation suggestion over there. That could solve both inconsistencies and get more in line with MS Office translations.
I am all for of setting up a consultation structure, be it in Weblate or here in a designated corner of the forum.
I am but an occasional user of LO and not involved its translation. As you may have noticed, MS is more of a reference to me, as it may be for many people migrating into FOSS alternatives.
Bridging MS Office to LibreOffice and onwards to Collabora Office, to me sounds challenging, as I’d not be involved in the middle stage.
Yes, it would be a good idea to have a Dutch glossary added to the Weblate project, given that one glossary will be applicable to all Collabora subprojects. I hope that such can be established. Who’s in charge of Collabora Weblate?
I’m ready to follow your lead.
hey @Stephan-P
Does this ans your question The engine strings are now on Weblate: translate all of Collabora Online and Collabora Office ?
Thanks
Darshan
Yesssssssssssssssss (long yes, because original word is not acceptable)
For the record, Spanish translations will follow LibreOffice. We’ve spent years establishing the terminology and supporting it with attestations, and in the cases we’ve deviated, we have good rationales for those. Funny thing about our work, Microsoft ended up copying a LibreOffice term for “layout” years ago – they went from their long and awkward “Diseño de página” to our “Disposición”. So it’s not like it’s always the best recourse to be blindly following the biggest competitor…
