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

Re: Another question

Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster 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?


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