[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Another question

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 02:10 -0500, Francesco Tombolini wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 27/01/2006 alle 10.16 -0800, Paul W. Frields ha scritto:
> > Would it be easier for translators if we
> > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.?  Comments
> > welcome. 
> I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags in
> the xml file...

I am having some second thoughts about this.  The lure of i18n'ing this
file just like all others is very strong, but there are some significant
problems it creates which weren't apparent to me at first blush.  For
example, RPM changelogs also come out of this file for our packaging
process.  Those are normally not translated.  This would mean the
confusion created by requiring translators *not* to translate certain
parts of the new rpm-info-*.xml files would be roughly equal to the
situation we had before.  Worse, though, it represents a possibility of
mismatch in the RPMs, or at least the appearance of mismatch when
translations are out of sync with the English versions at packaging

More discussion is welcome, with an eye toward rolling some docs out the
door into Fedora Extras at or near FC5t3 release.  Tommy normally
catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be wrong in thinking we
need to change course.
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]