Issue 2645

Summary:

Typo in Tradition Chinese Version

Product:

Internationalization

Reporter:

oldfield <oldfield>

Component:

code

Assignee:

ulf.stroehler

Status:

CLOSED FIXED

QA Contact:

issues@l10n <issues>

Severity:

Trivial

Priority:

CC:

issues

Version:

643

Target Milestone:

---

Hardware:

OS:

Linux, all

Issue Type:

DEFECT

Latest Confirmation in:

---

Developer Difficulty:

---

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Sounds like the code is in a mess, I upload it as a binary file	none

Description oldfield 2001-12-28 04:17:45 UTC

Here's a list in Big5 encoding:

1. ?? -> ??
2. ?? -> ??
3. ?? -> ??
4. ? -> ?
5. ? -> ?

Comment 1 oldfield 2001-12-28 04:22:16 UTC

Created attachment 852 [details]
Sounds like the code is in a mess, I upload it as a binary file

Comment 2 oldfield 2002-01-10 01:23:52 UTC

I mean some traditional chinese translation is done wrongly with
simplified chinese characters which also appears in the traditional
chinese characters set, but they should not be used that way.

The attachment is the correct mapping.

Comment 3 Dieter.Loeschky 2002-01-11 09:12:44 UTC

DL->Oldfield: Could you please describe where the wrong typo happens?
Is the wrong typo in a dialog or a menue or in writing text in Writer
or Impress?

Comment 4 oldfield 2002-01-14 03:17:58 UTC

Sorry for missing this in the report.

They're in the cinema part, i.e. the descriptions which we saw during
the installation, thx.

Comment 5 oldfield 2002-02-19 04:47:11 UTC

Oldfield -> DL: answered as above.

Comment 6 Dieter.Loeschky 2002-03-25 08:27:23 UTC

DL->SBA: Could you please takeover?

Comment 7 stefan.baltzer 2002-05-15 11:51:40 UTC

Oldfield, can you please verify your findings in version 641 and
comment? Thank you.

Comment 8 oldfield 2002-05-15 12:00:39 UTC

Same for 641 or 1.0.

Comment 9 stefan.baltzer 2002-06-05 15:19:04 UTC

Reassigned to Hasan.
SBA->HI: Please include ZL to clarify this.

Comment 10 h.ilter 2002-06-24 09:31:50 UTC

OK

Comment 11 oldfield 2002-10-04 06:03:23 UTC

Most are fixed in the latest 643 (SRX643_OO) except one:

&#20778;&#30064;

Thanks.

Comment 12 h.ilter 2002-12-02 11:38:25 UTC

HI->US: Please have a look for this.

Comment 13 oldfield 2003-01-02 02:01:14 UTC

All fixed in the latest 643C source, many thanks.

Comment 14 thorsten.ziehm 2003-05-20 16:16:32 UTC

This task is fixed or worked in OOo 1.1 beta2.

Comment 15 thorsten.ziehm 2003-05-20 16:33:35 UTC

closed ...