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

Re: [l10n] Manual translation issues

Hash: SHA1


Looks like your knowledge of xml and the tools is better than mine.
Maybe we can work something out together faster than I thought :-)

On Tuesday 14 September 2004 22:27, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:05:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > - - The preface.xml is not handled correctly by xml2pot: from the
> > <preface> tag down it is _not_ included in the .pot (attached) and in
> > the .nl.po. I think this also explains why the first pages of the ru
> > translation are incomplete.
> I'm not that sure about that. We all know that these files are
> "incomplete" XMLs, i.e. not well-formed as they are merely included, but
> a good XML parser will choke on preface.xml.
> Can we 
> restructure that one somehow? Split in two, for example, this would solve
> the problem.

Yes, that works. I have split the file into bookinfo.xml and preface.xml.
I will try to check all .xml files for the same kind of errors.

> > - - xml2pot replaces some text by fairly unreadable codes where the
> > real text to be translated tends go get lost. See for example the
> > <informalexample> table in module/partman.pot (attached).
> Sorry, I do not see any significant difference to what is in the xml
> file. If you are talking about all the "\n"s in there, these are not a
> big problem, as they are a necessary artifact ;)

Hmm. The strange stuff I saw was in the partman.nl.po I created. The .pot 
file looks much better :-)


My guess is this was caused by the fact that my Dutch .xml files are in 
ISO-8859-1. poxml seemed to handle that OK, but I guess I'll try converting 
my files to UTF-8 before running split2po.
Hmmmm, no, tried that, doesn't help. Looks like there may be a difference 
between split2po and xml2pot.
Any ideas?

> > - - When using split2po, the structure of the original and the
> > translation must be completely equal. Although that is not an error, it
> > is something to watch out for when converting. I had three files (that
> > I know of) where the .nl.po was generated incorrectly by split2po:
> >   - preface.xml: I had added a <para> in the Dutch .xml explaning that
> > the translation is Work in progress;
> Shouldn't this be a conditional <para> in every translation, which would
> get disabled on some occasion?

Can you suggest something? The problem is you would probably need some kind 
of 'placeholder <para>' in the English original that would not be included 
in the build. Also, we would probably want to limit this to some places.
(If you look at nl/bookinfo.xml, you will see the added para marked by:
 <!--FJP Nieuwe paragraaf specifiek voor nl //-->)

> <BTW>
> There is some arch-dependant mess in buildone.sh (at least in SVN) which
> should be best split out of there and updated. At least the kernel
> versions are not right.
> </BTW>

Suggestions welcome. (It is being updated in general, but there have been 
quite a few kernel changes recently.)

> >   - boot-new/boot-new.xml: I had chosen not to translate one particular
> >     <para>;
> You commented it out, right? The choice not to translate something would
> still be yours ;)

Of course. This was a tricky para to translate and it did not really add to 
the text, so I just commented it out. Not translating it in a .po file 
would however mean the English text would be inserted, which I would 
definitely not want.
I repeat though, IMO it is not an error in poxml, but something that 
translators need to watch out for when converting their current translation 
to .ll_CC.po files.

> >   - administrivia/contributors.xml: I had resorted the languages in
> > Dutch.
> I think this is actually the task of the appropriate xsl-stylesheet, if
> I'm not mistaken. However, my xsl experience and knowledge is very
> rudimentary.

Don't know how that would work as it would mean sorting inside a table. For 
now, I'll just reorder the languages in my translation to the original 
Again, not an error, just something to watch out for.

> Are the "big structural changes" coming to the manual soon, or is it
> almost finalized? I though, I've seen mentioning of boot-floppies
> somewhere...

Depends on how much people want to work on the manual. See also my mail [1].

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2004/09/msg00813.html

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: