| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:51:54PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
Content-Description: signed data |
| 3 |
> I see no problems with just keeping the current /proj/en structure either |
| 4 |
> (although actually creating some translations should help) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
There is a problem with having /proj/en structure: it is illogical for |
| 7 |
translations and permissions. Think as a system admin with 19 projects (if I |
| 8 |
can count correctly). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What would you prefer? Have permissions for each project seperately, and then |
| 11 |
have one permission for the translations, or have permissions for each |
| 12 |
project, each language seperately? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
In the latter case, you would have to assign permissions to the same group of |
| 15 |
translators 19 times, meaning 285 assignments (15 languages in total |
| 16 |
including English). The former only once, meaning 33 assignments (19 for the |
| 17 |
projects and 14 for the resulting languages). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For the non-translating teams there is no change (except directory |
| 20 |
structure). But the internationalization-proposal really requires such a |
| 21 |
change to become effective. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Wkr, |
| 24 |
Sven Vermeulen |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Save some animals, eat a vegetarian. |
Archives