Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents

[Jan Kundrát]

Flammie Pirinen wrote:
> I really think that these could be done with static note inserted in
> the code, because whatever program logic you could be thinking for
> them it will always be multiple order more complex than needed. If you
> want something easily automagically translatable you could introduce
> something like <thirdparty/> and <obsolete/> empty (replaced) elements
> in style of <license/>, no?

Seems reasonable. And I vote for that extra tag and not yet another
<warn>...</warn>.


>>c) Translation in language which is not officially supported
>
>
> I wouldn't do anything with this, unless it intersects with d). I mean,
> why would we need to tell our users that otherwise up-to-date document
> should not be trusted to, just because the related translation team is
> not organized with proper bureaucratic structure.

Well, current practice is that neysx commits every translation if it
seems to be ok from the XML point of view, but I'm not sure if it is a
good think to say that such docs are "official" - purely technically,
they were contributed by non-Gentoo person and we have no guarantee that
they are correct.

Just my 2 cents, of course - I'm not aware of any troubles caused by
this approach, so maybe I'm just too paranoic :-).

>>d) Outdated translation
>
>
> This is one really required improvement of this proposal, but it
> relates to bigger part of desperately needed accessibility improvements
> in whole translation system anyways.
[...]

I asked for the same while ago and was told that it is "not possible" or
at least "not so easy". BTW, see GLEP 10 [1].

[...]
> After these basics are in order, we might want to start looking in to
> peeking original versions of document to see how up to date it is.
[...]

This raises a problem about "what is outdated"?


Cheers,
-jkt

[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0010.html

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth