| 1 |
2005-09-08, Jan Kundrát sanoi, jotta: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> a) Third party article |
| 4 |
> b) Older Handbook |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I really think that these could be done with static note inserted in |
| 7 |
the code, because whatever program logic you could be thinking for |
| 8 |
them it will always be multiple order more complex than needed. If you |
| 9 |
want something easily automagically translatable you could introduce |
| 10 |
something like <thirdparty/> and <obsolete/> empty (replaced) elements |
| 11 |
in style of <license/>, no? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> c) Translation in language which is not officially supported |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I wouldn't do anything with this, unless it intersects with d). I mean, |
| 16 |
why would we need to tell our users that otherwise up-to-date document |
| 17 |
should not be trusted to, just because the related translation team is |
| 18 |
not organized with proper bureaucratic structure. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> d) Outdated translation |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is one really required improvement of this proposal, but it |
| 23 |
relates to bigger part of desperately needed accessibility improvements |
| 24 |
in whole translation system anyways. One of the biggest problems I get |
| 25 |
reported for Finnish docs is that finding the corresponding English doc |
| 26 |
is PITA (not everyone is comfortable with hacking the address line of |
| 27 |
browser, after all). What would really be needed to solve situation |
| 28 |
(and has been asked by community a thousand times) is language |
| 29 |
negotiation of translated documents, and because of how language |
| 30 |
negotiation algorithm works, it could easily be modified to take |
| 31 |
outdatedness of translation in to account as qs-value, this way we |
| 32 |
could serve up-to-date enough version to user in language he |
| 33 |
understands even if it isn't native language or English. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Of course on top of that we still do really need full interlanguage |
| 36 |
linking web for all documents, and not just the for two index pages we |
| 37 |
have. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
After these basics are in order, we might want to start looking in to |
| 40 |
peeking original versions of document to see how up to date it is. By |
| 41 |
the way, why can't this be done same way as in overview.xml? Because |
| 42 |
AFAICS metadoc.xml in Finnish, for example, has only link to either |
| 43 |
English or Finnish version, so the xslt must use some logic to fetch |
| 44 |
english versions here, no? And if the logic is to pull the stuff from |
| 45 |
English metadoc by matching id, shouldn't we then just resolve this by |
| 46 |
adding a matching id to the root elements of the documents, which is |
| 47 |
something that from semantic pov should've been done from beginning on |
| 48 |
already. Of course this'd add overhead of loading (document()ing?) the |
| 49 |
metadoc for all pageloads... |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Flammie, Gentoo Linux Documentation's Finnish head translator. |
| 53 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~flammie> |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list |
Archives