Humdinger <humdingerb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > It looks like this po/pot thing is the way it's > done all around. It seems to be the best(?) way > to work with versioning of repositories. I don't think these software localization methods, formats and tools are suitable at all for translation of larger bodies of coherent text, as in prose or user manuals or whatever. > There are big projects relying on distributed > translation also using that system. I'm not disputing that gettext and po/pot work for internationalization of software with sets of unordered, unrelated sets of strings. Translation of coherent texts can not and should not be done by putting every sentence in some kind of database or lookup file. Languages can have very different characteristics. ... > There's _got_ to be a working solution for us out > there that we don't have to start our own thing. I wonder what professional translators use. Those who translate books or subtitle DVDs. I see problems with lots of piecemeal translation done by different people, over extended periods of time, with translations being incomplete and unsynchronized most of the time. (The paragraph versioning I suggested in a previous post might work to estimate -how- incomplete and unsynchronized a set of translations are. How much is done/what is still left.) If authoring of new content will be allowed in any langauge, this new content would flow somewhat unpredictably from language to language depending on the languages understood by the active translators. /Jonas.