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

Re: Criteria to activate languages in D-I?



On Sunday 04 November 2007, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I like your suggestion of "early warning" for incomplete
> languages. For now, I can think of it as an hardcoded list in
> localechooser, for simplicity. We would then releae localechooser at
> the last minute, with a hardcoded list of languages that are
> incomplete and then display a warning immediately after users pick up
> a language.

I would make it a list (possibly different per architecture) that is 
included when _images_ are built (in /etc/ somewhere), but which is used by 
localechooser.

> > Yes, and my statement is: if most of the installer is translated but
> > one or more key dialogs are (partly) in English, the installer is
> > almost as unusable! Or do you think that they will magically be able to
> > understand those English bits just because there is little of it?
> >
> > > Given that the fallback language is *always* English, the situation
> > > for the language with very few strings missing is not worse when we
> > > keep the 98%-translated file.
> >
> > I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
>
> Well, my reasoning was simple: if we drop a language, then the only
> solution for users is installing in English, right?
>
> So, the deal is between an installer where most of the installation
> happens in the user's language with a few strings in English and using
> English only. This is what I call "not worse".

In both cases it is _only_ usable for users who understand English, so that 
is why _I_ say it is not any better either!
However, it _is_ completely misleading as we seem to offer an installation 
that is in their own language.

> Again, having a key string not translated at a key moment may be a
> very bad surprise if the user is completely clueless in
> English....which again brings the idea of an initial warning.

Yes, and at that point it could be they have just formatted their hard disk, 
or even worse, they've just made a completely wrong choice and lost all 
their data because a key string was not translated.

> > I still think that we've had *extremely* good results so far with the
> > fairly strict policy, both for the installer itself and for the manual.
> > The trick is in having a strict policy, but still being able to be
> > reasonable and fair by making exceptions when there are good reasons
> > (as I
>
> My proposal is as strict as the previous policy. The difference is
> where to put te barrier, only.

A completely artificial and totally meaningless barrier...

> > Huh? Wouldn't you only need to merge all levels together into a
> > (temporary) single master file before merging back to the individual
> > packages? Seems simple enough to me...
>
> Sure, but how can we automate the process of building the "sublevel"
> PO files ?

Using this:
> > And the splitting out into sublevels could be done by again first
> > merging to a single master file and then using msggrep -C.

> From what I get of tour proposal, we would tag the strings somewhere
> (in the templates file?), then dispatch them into sublevel PO files.

Yes, add a comment to indicate the level and then msggrep -C on that 
comment, first for the lowest level and then for the higher levels. Any 
strings that are left over are sublevel 1.

> > We could use something like the following levels:
> > - sublevel 1: default
> > - sublevel 2: general strings not used during default installs
> > - sublevel 3: expert strings (some low prio, some for e.g. RAID)
> > - sublevel 4: specific to less-popular arches (powerpc, mips, sparc?)
> > or used in experimental features
> > - sublevel 5: same for high-end (hppa, ia64, s390) and hobby (m68k)
> > arches
> >
> > I'd personally like to aim for 100% for levels 1-3; the distinction
> > between them mainly being useful to prioritize translation work. I'd be
> > happy to leave translating levels 4 and 5 a decision of the translators
> > (as long as we do display something like that warning for those
> > arches).
>
> Well, that converges towards our current 2 sublevels.

Sure, but with a _lot_ better split than we have currently.

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


Reply to: