Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Alexey Chumakov <achumakov@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:50:57
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents by Flammie Pirinen
Flammie Pirinen пишет:
> 2005-09-08, Jan Kundrát sanoi, jotta: >>d) Outdated translation
> 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. By > the way, why can't this be done same way as in overview.xml? Because > AFAICS metadoc.xml in Finnish, for example, has only link to either > English or Finnish version, so the xslt must use some logic to fetch > english versions here, no? And if the logic is to pull the stuff from > English metadoc by matching id, shouldn't we then just resolve this by > adding a matching id to the root elements of the documents, which is > something that from semantic pov should've been done from beginning on > already. Of course this'd add overhead of loading (document()ing?) the > metadoc for all pageloads... >
Using the link in the document itself ls like any decentralized way: + efficiency -- no need to parse metadoc for each page + reliability -- no broken links on metadoc failure + flexibility -- works with non-metadoc project docs - human factor -- document maintainer is responsible for the link - need to update path in several places if source moves To deal with '-', we need to: maintain personal responsibility for maintainers (actually self-maintained in our case, isn't it?) simply accept the need to update path -- it's already there :-) Using metadoc, the pros are: + clearness for the lead translator (...or actually not?) + simplicity of batch update (isn't often? Cons are the opposite. Are we centralized or not? :-) Wkr, Alexey -- gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents "Jan Kundrát" <jkt@g.o>