Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)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