1 |
Jan Kundrát wrote: |
2 |
> Xavier Neys wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>Some doc dev complained that comparing the dates would not work if two |
5 |
>>updates occurred in the same day. True. Comparing the versions is a bit |
6 |
>>more complex and involves two extra scans of the handbooks (the original |
7 |
>>and the translated one). It's fast enough IMO. My <300Mhz test box still |
8 |
>>delivers handbook chapters under the second. Note that it is still not |
9 |
>>100% fool-proof. If a chapter disappears from the original, the mention |
10 |
>>of a more recent original would not appear on the translations because |
11 |
>>the xsl scans the original and compares the version with the version of |
12 |
>>the file that is included at the same position (part/chapter-wise) in |
13 |
>>the translation. That has not happened yet. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>>I'm not going to parse the version strings to try to quantify the amount |
16 |
>>of changes that occurred because 1) versions are not structured 2) a |
17 |
>>single bump could mean a small or a big change, and vice-versa for more |
18 |
>>bumps. Displaying the date of the original should be a good indication. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Thanks, I like this idea. Am I correct when I assume that it will check |
22 |
> both handbook-$ARCH.xml and hb-$foo-$bar.xml when displaying only one |
23 |
> chapter and all files for current $ARCH when doing ?full=1 ? |
24 |
|
25 |
Almost. |
26 |
Full handbook: all files are checked |
27 |
TOC (part and/or chap = 0), master file is checked |
28 |
Chapter, hb-$foo-$bar.xml is checked, checking the master files as well would |
29 |
be trivial, but why should they be checked? |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
Cheers, |
33 |
-- |
34 |
/ Xavier Neys |
35 |
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project |
36 |
/ French & Internationalisation Lead |
37 |
\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en |
38 |
/\ |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list |