From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:36 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7988911253574885535==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Paul W. Frields To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Another question Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:16:53 -0800 Message-ID: <1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> --===============7988911253574885535== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Our documentation building process requires an additional file "rpm-info.xml" that contains metadata about the document, such as revision history, title, authors, etc. The way things stand now, translators should edit this file directly, adding translations like: Example Tutorial How we do it Beispieltutorial Data data data... I am just now learning how translation works, thanks to Manuel Ospina's Translation Quick Start Guide. Would it be easier for translators if we moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments welcome. -- = 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/ --===============7988911253574885535== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuNC4xIChHTlUv TGludXgpCgppRDhEQlFCRDJtT1ZyTnZKTjcwUk54Y1JBZ3hVQUtEd2RjMUZzMkRUeVlYbkxCWklX Q2lPdFVXUnpRQ2NEWlc3CjI0QnJ4RGQ1T3BvbzNVbUJ1SVZnWEljPQo9L0QzaQotLS0tLUVORCBQ R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============7988911253574885535==-- From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:36 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6219269979012932415==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tommy Reynolds To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:59:10 -0600 Message-ID: <20060127125910.0a04ff15.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> In-Reply-To: 1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain --===============6219269979012932415== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > I am just now learning how translation works, thanks to Manuel Ospina's > Translation Quick Start Guide. Would it be easier for translators if we > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > welcome. What about this would be easier? We would then need another DTD to avoid requiring information duplication, or one "rpm-info.xml" would need to be primary. The actual non-English information in the current "rpm-info.xml" seems quite minimal in contrast with translating an entire document. However, I could be convinced. Debate welcomed. --===============6219269979012932415==-- From tombo at adamantio.net Fri Jun 5 09:50:36 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5754755607981618739==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Francesco Tombolini To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:10:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> In-Reply-To: 1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain --===============5754755607981618739== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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... Best regards -- = Francesco Tombolini --===============5754755607981618739== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuNC4yIChHTlUv TGludXgpCgppRDhEQlFCRDJ4am1oWVJyQmZGQVgzTVJBbGx3QUo5VE5DdjRVeWtkQVZDYmF4R0N4 dWQvemdiaTFRQ2d2Y0tECnd1eFVHN1IzVnI2QU1ncEZVbXJDWkRFPQo9Y0RCRAotLS0tLUVORCBQ R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============5754755607981618739==-- From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:36 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3723290350999521962==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Paul W. Frields To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:51:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1138474289.4853.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: 20060127125910.0a04ff15.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com --===============3723290350999521962== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:59 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > = > > I am just now learning how translation works, thanks to Manuel Ospina's > > Translation Quick Start Guide. Would it be easier for translators if we > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > welcome. > = > What about this would be easier? We would then need another DTD to > avoid requiring information duplication, or one "rpm-info.xml" would > need to be primary. We wouldn't need any additional DTD; see the Translation Quick Start Guide for info on how translators work. They simply do an xml2po or xml2pot, and translate the appropriate element content. > The actual non-English information in the current "rpm-info.xml" > seems quite minimal in contrast with translating an entire document. > = > However, I could be convinced. > = > Debate welcomed. The translators' existing (and efficient, AFAICT) process doesn't jibe well with what we require of them in rpm-info.xml. I really don't care one way or the other, personally; I am just trying to make translation easy for those who are devoting their volunteer time to it. If some of them are finding it confusing -- which I think may be the case, given how few of them are adding the appropriate translation information to the rpm-info.xml currently -- then it makes sense for us to fix our process, rather than requiring them to adjust purely for FDP usage. On the other hand, it is minimal content for now. If Manuel and others agree, we could just fix the TQSG to reference how specifically the rpm-info.xml needs to be updated by translators. Right now, that procedure doesn't seem to follow the "simple + elegant" method, which describes the normal translation process IMHO. -- = 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/ --===============3723290350999521962== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuNC4xIChHTlUv TGludXgpCgppRDhEQlFCRDI3MHhyTnZKTjcwUk54Y1JBczJDQUpzRXRXc3o0dzd0UFN3YlJkQmY3 UmkxcEZKMTJ3Q2drM1ZSClREZkJsSlFsUENwNE1zOGFDaktHVVY0PQo9QUdmUwotLS0tLUVORCBQ R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============3723290350999521962==-- From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:37 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6964165836130637751==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tommy Reynolds To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:28:24 -0600 Message-ID: <20060129152824.5c32990d.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> In-Reply-To: 1138474289.4853.16.camel@localhost.localdomain --===============6964165836130637751== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > > > I am just now learning how translation works, thanks to Manuel Ospina= 's > > > Translation Quick Start Guide. Would it be easier for translators if= we > > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > > welcome. > > The actual non-English information in the current "rpm-info.xml" > > seems quite minimal in contrast with translating an entire document. > The translators' existing (and efficient, AFAICT) process doesn't jibe > well with what we require of them in rpm-info.xml. Sorry, I hadn't made that connection. Good catch. By all means, let's use a technique that works well all on its own. Seamless, and all that. Still, we need a way of thinking about the "rpm-info.xml" file that matches the plethora of "rpm-info-${LANG}.xml" files. Workers, titles and descriptions I can see being "translated" well enough. Will there be an authoritative changelog? If so, where? Keeping it in the English translation seems, well, chauvinistic. Per-language changelogs? Hmm. Appealing. Perhaps we haven't done a good job highlighting that the "rpm-info.xml" file is really a multi-lingual document, instead of being English-only. Name change in order? I'm willing to bow to experience here; I'm limited to translating between English and Good Ole' Boy English. Cheers --===============6964165836130637751==-- From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:37 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5014624377373901685==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Paul W. Frields To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:01:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: 1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org --===============5014624377373901685== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 time. 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/ --===============5014624377373901685== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuNC4xIChHTlUv TGludXgpCgppRDhEQlFCRDVNR3NyTnZKTjcwUk54Y1JBZ29OQUtDTTEzanErQXRPNHFNM2Z2WlB0 NkFpWkdPQTBBQ2FBKzc5CmFabVZSbkVCY2tKYkoyVFo2QmNCQ2o4PQo9QVVvTQotLS0tLUVORCBQ R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============5014624377373901685==-- From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:37 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5356799634345772259==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tommy Reynolds To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:37:37 -0600 Message-ID: <20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> In-Reply-To: 1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain --===============5356799634345772259== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > > > 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. > > Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be > wrong in thinking we need to change course. Busted, again ;-) I would vastly prefer to use a single rpm-info.xml file and have all portions of that be authoritative. Otherwise you are faced with having some rpm-info files be more equal than others, on a stanza-by-stanza basis. 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. My original vision was that a single rpm-info.xml file would contain ALL the meta-information for a document. There didn't seem to be a way to have a separate ".spec" file for each language (and thus separate RPM's) and that implied that all the changelog activity could be lumped together. BTW, I considered the "%changelog" to not strictly be an RPM or document ChangeLog as such, but to represent more of an event log. Each correction, addition, or packaging event would be recorded there. Just before an RPM package release, a new RPM event would be added thus marking the RPM version and release. No need to synchronize the document versions with the RPM versions unless convention dictated. Not a course change, just a return to sanity. You have now read my $0.02USD. What is yours? We await your pleasure. --===============5356799634345772259==-- From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:38 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8960643967841026851==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Paul W. Frields To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:23:35 -0500 Message-ID: <1139156616.3028.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: 20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com --===============8960643967841026851== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 18:37 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > = > > > > Would it be easier for translators if we > > > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > > > welcome. = > > > I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags= in > > > the xml file... > > I am having some second thoughts about this. > > > > Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be > > wrong in thinking we need to change course. > = > Busted, again ;-) > = > I would vastly prefer to use a single rpm-info.xml file and have all > portions of that be authoritative. Otherwise you are faced with > having some rpm-info files be more equal than others, on a > stanza-by-stanza basis. = This is far more clear than the way I stated my new misgivings. Thanks. > Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common > changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary > language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative > rpm-info-${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? That seems even more intuitive, so translators need not hunt through the other modules or read Makefile stuff to figure out where the rpm-info lives for a specific doc, in the even that it's not "en". Plus it gives the correct impression that it is the One XML that rules over an entire set of translations. Or am I going insane again? > My original vision was that a single rpm-info.xml file would contain > ALL the meta-information for a document. There didn't seem to be a > way to have a separate ".spec" file for each language (and thus > separate RPM's) and that implied that all the changelog activity > could be lumped together. Yes, although it would be possible to do separate "-*.spec" files (with separate "rpm-info-*.xml" files), it would be clumsy, a maintenance nightmare, and ill-advised. Far better to wait for documents to achieve uniformity through complete translations, and only then roll the packages. > BTW, I considered the "%changelog" to not strictly be an RPM or > document ChangeLog as such, but to represent more of an event log. > Each correction, addition, or packaging event would be recorded > there. Just before an RPM package release, a new RPM event would be > added thus marking the RPM version and release. No need to > synchronize the document versions with the RPM versions unless > convention dictated. Right, it would be more of the nature of "We've made some good fixes, they've all been translated into the target languages, time to ship an RPM update." > Not a course change, just a return to sanity. > = > You have now read my $0.02USD. What is yours? We await your > pleasure. 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. 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}? -- = 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/ --===============8960643967841026851== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEuNC4xIChHTlUv TGludXgpCgppRDhEQlFCRDVpYUhyTnZKTjcwUk54Y1JBajBEQUtEQk5GMksySWc4YmRiZDUrWlJJ VTZzOGdSUmNnQ2dtVUhUCmNiVmV0UVdTZTRST2RSdTRYM0hVU1BnPQo9VGZYWgotLS0tLUVORCBQ R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============8960643967841026851==-- From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Fri Jun 5 09:50:38 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4337321741799385021==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tommy Reynolds To: trans at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Another question Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:52:26 -0600 Message-ID: <20060205105226.91d1931a.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> In-Reply-To: 1139156616.3028.17.camel@localhost.localdomain --===============4337321741799385021== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , 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=3Dfoo" attribute. Is that a sufficient hint? Cheers --===============4337321741799385021==--