Another question
Tommy Reynolds
Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com
Sun Feb 5 16:52:26 UTC 2006
Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:
> > Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common
> > changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary
> > language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative
> > rpm-info-${LANG}.xml file. After all, not all documents will
> > originate in "en", will they? The complications and accommodations
> > seem to be creeping in. Let's stomp them out.
>
> Agreed. One question: why not have an authoritative "rpm-info.xml" file
> just live in the doc module root?
Yes, having a single authoritative "rpm-info.xml" file in the
document root is the one true way(tm).
> Yes, if some additional translators (I already heard from one) would
> confirm that this doesn't burden them -- remembering to put translations
> in certain elements of the "rpm-info.xml" file -- that would be grand.
Well, that's one more than I've heard from. Could this really be a
non-issue in the grand scheme of things?
> I will put a little bit of comment fluff in the XSL stylesheets to
> indicate clearly what to translate.
> Is there any standardized way for indicating parts of an XML file that
> should not be translated? Some sort of outboard configuration that is
> understood by xml2po{,t}?
Dunno, but don't think so.
However, I took some care in selecting which XML elements included a
"lang=foo" attribute. Is that a sufficient hint?
Cheers
More information about the Fedora-trans-list
mailing list