RE: Regarding the importance of multilingualism

Hi,
I think that when a translation is published to the list, speakers of the language should try their hand at proofreading it a bit.
 
Also checking for links and things like that.
 
Thus it might be worth while to introduce a short waiting period before a completed translation is published so that native speakers (and other speakers--a favorite article of mine on this and English is Widdowson's address to TESOL, "Whose English?"--but of course Widdowson seems to be accepting what some might characterize as errors in speaking English) can review it first and notify the list if there are major problems.
 
To the extent that I have computer access, I am happy to review French (but I have not read any of Mr. Solari's lately I must confess), and also links (which I can just click on).
 
But I have got limited access these days; I use a computer mainly at a library to look for a job!
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com Hi all,I agree in that the peer revision model is a good first step.As far as translations into Spanish is concerned, since 1998 there is a group of Translators in the SIDAR Seminar [1], which was established precisely to facilitate the possibility that the Spanish translations are reviewed by other translators before publication, in a way that ensure a minimally acceptable level. The group has agreed a workflow, rules of style and features a glossary to facilitate the homogenization of the translation of technical terms or neologisms.All the spanish translators are invited to be part of the group [2].This group of translators is also available to be part of the official translation teams, and indeed some of they participated actively and tirelessly, on behalf of the Sidar Foundationin, in the first official translation existing  [3].Best regards,Emmanuelle[1] http://www.sidar.org/presen/[2] http://www.sidar.org/recur/desdi/traduc/index.php[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/Translations/Lists/ListAuth.html-- Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y RestrepoFundación y Seminario SIDARURL: www.sidar.orgemail: emmanuelle@sidar.org
2008/1/7, Simone Pascarosa <simone.pascarosa@gmail.com>: 
I'm so happy to see such a post!I agree completely with the peer revision model; in Italy, where I live, I'm working with the Italian Linux Documentation Project and we use this model to ensure the quality of our translation (considering that everybody is native speaker). I can suggest, for W3C documents, a native speaker proofreader that just reads documents and issues translation problems. If he thinks translation is too wrong than he can call a peer proofreader to mark that translation as wrong and to re-translate it. But maybe we can talk about it extensively.... ;)Simone 

On Jan 7, 2008 5:11 PM, Gaston Diego Valente < gaston@spanish-translator-services.com > wrote:
Hello everybody,I have been following the discussions about how far we should go in the pursue of localizing W3 documents and found this post of an UNESCOinitiative around this issue.http://www.english-spanish-translator.org/translators-events/3005-2008-international-year-languages.html#post12200On the other hand I agree the quality of translations must be supervisedto ensure that the localization effort is not only broad but also of the highest quality possible. Maybe a peer revision model can work.Kind Regards,Gaston-- Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y RestrepoFundación y Seminario SIDARURL: www.sidar.orgemail: emmanuelle@sidar.org