Käännös - Ranska-Englanti - on s'est dit

Thank you very much Franky!!! What do you think I should do? As you said, the context is incomplete! Should I make it "We told each other" and write below the other meaning "We thought" ???

Yes, Chrysso91, I think it is a good idea.
Cheers!

"on" is neutral

Yes, it is.
Have a look here and you will see some more details about the way "on" or "l'on" is employed in "orthodoxe" French writen language, but keep in mind that "on" is very commonly used, in talken French, to replace "nous", and that most of French people, when they are talking, don't take too much care about employing properly "on" or "l'on".
(This link above is in French language, I sent it to chrysso91 some time ago...)

Sorry for those who voted "wrong "about the translation, but as a French native speaker I know about the meaning of this sentence into English, moreover I took the time to explain (above) what it really was about this short French text, so that before voting you should have had a look at what I wrote.
Translating "on" by "one" into English would be here a mistake, because of the following two words "s'est dit". The "on" which would be translatable by "one" into English is a much more general one, and you would be right if "on" was employed with the active present tense : "on dit"
Here the translation chrysso did is definitely right, sorry.

well, isn't it like?..
they've told each other?

Most often when "on" is employed by French native speakers, as I said above, it is to mean "nous". With another context (a more explicit sentence) it could be translated more accurately, but here, as there's no context at all, just a subject and a verb, the most currently employed as a meaning of "on" by French speaking people is "nous".

I have asked the requester to provide more context, so that we can really know what it was.

OK, if ever he answers your request, we will know a little more about the context, but chrysso91 did a good translation, and she hasn't got to see her translation refused because we will know something that wasn't possible to know when the translation was done. I took time to explain something, as a native French speaker, about "on s'est dit", and there aren't several more possibilities with "on s'est dit", could be
1) "on s'est dit au revoir" ("we said goodbye to each other(s)"
2) "On s'est dit que + a relative proposition" (we told ourselves that + relative proposition)
So chrysso91 gave these two possibilities, one in the translation field, and the other in the comments field.

Les deux se regardèrent (??) aux yeux et on s'est dit au revoir ...

I don't understand too much the sentence you told, as "les deux se regardèrent dans les yeux" is third person plural.

"nous nous sommes promenés ensemble tout l'aprés-midi, et au moment de partir, elle a pleuré quand on s'est dit au revoir"( "we went for a walk on the whole afternoon, and when it was time to go, she cried when we said goodbye to each other"

"Quand on a vu le temps qu'il faisait, on s'est dit qu'il était préférable d'emporter un parapluie"("When we saw the weather, we told ourselves we'd better take an umbrella with us"

Were you looking for an example, or is it what speak up sent you? Here above are two more examples about the different ways to use "on s'est dit"
with this "on s'est dit" there are two possibilities, but there aren't three.

i understood the meaning of "on s'est dit"
what i did not understand is why it is said
"on s'est dit" and not
"on s'a dit"

merci beaucoup

You asked: "Were you looking for an example, or is it what speak up sent you?"

I was looking for a counter-example. I thought the sentence I made up would be translated, "They looked into each other's eyes and then they said goodbye (to each other)", but I guess I was wrong.

I had already understood that it could be translated "we said to each other" - I just thought it could also be "they said to each other" in some cases, as tristangun said above.

No, "on" couldn't replace the third person plural in this case. Not when it is said "on s'est dit". if "on" can sometimes mean "they"("on dit" : "people say", "one says" it is definitely not the case here. if the present tense was used, simply at the present tense of indicative,and at the active mode(without the "s'" then it could be translated by "one"
or even by "it is said", or "it is told".(eg : "on dit qu'il fait froid au Canada"...
But the difference with this submitted text is that it is used at the pronominal form, using "s'"("se dire" : "to tell each other", or "to say to each other", or "to tell something to oneself". Here you got : "on s'est dit"
it means that it is a personal narrative way to describe something one, two or several people did, told by one of them. EG the examples I gave above in my preview post.
I hope you understand better now, but you simply should trust me, as I really am a french native speaker, and I don't see one single French native speaker who could infirm what I'm trying to explain. I know it is a translation into english, but if one wants to respect the meaning of these three simple words put together, you need a French expert to explain, am I wrong?
to resume, in any case, "on s'est dit" is translatable ONLY by "we told each other", or by "we told ourselves" (we thought)

Francky, thanks, I've read the comments about this translation. I voted "wrong" because "on" for me is neutral, but I understand now the sense of this translation, you're a french native speaker!

Thanks, Francky. Sorry I doubted you. I validated the translation yesterday.

Yes, I saw, and was glad you did, it means my explainations weren't too confusing. I'm like Iepurica is with Romanian, I really love my mother tongue, so that there's nothing I would post if I wasn't 100% sure it was true. Then one other thing is that spoken French is much different sometimes from writen (academic) French, but I guess it is the same thing with the English...
About French language, I was surprised to see that one of the most accurate websites about it was a French-Canadian one (druide), because when I hear some French-Canadian talking French, I just can't understand what they say. But have a look to one link I posted above in this discussion (about academic way to use "on" and "l'on" 2 Juillet 2007 10:15)
, you'll see "druide" is really an accurate one! Cheers!

One of the problems with Québecois French is that the pronunciation is so different. I've been trying to pick up some of it since I moved to Canada - I have a French conversation group, and some of the members are Québecois native speakers.

Of course, they also have a lot of borrowed words from English!

Any time one hears a Québecois speaking French here in France, one's face is always enlightened with a large smile... but not only the accent is funny, their expressions really have to be translated from Canadian-French to French!

I recently had a look to a little miscaellenous book, you know this kind of very thin book containing a lot of various informations, and some of the expressions used would never been understandable to another French speaking person.
It is from far the most different to our French from France, with the strongest accent too.

Some Belgian people from Brussels have got another strong accent, though more understandable, then people from Switzerland speak real funny (to a French from France), with a very slow spelling motion; It must be the easiest French for foreigners, because it is talken in slow motion!

As a trainer of English teachers, we try not to speak of other dialects of our languages as "funny" - they're just different, and it's important to be aware of the differences, as the people we are teaching may have learned a different variety of English before they came to us.