Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:57:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> (...)
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html
> >
> > The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which
> > i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which
> > translators do not respect the layout of the original description.
>
> IMHO this should have been discussed in the debian-i18n first.
That was not my decision, i was asking information and got an answer
posted back to the l10n-french.
> > Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
> > back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
> (..)
>
> Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are done
> except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a translation team
> works, but you do not understand the language, tough luck.
Do you think it is nice to start a discussion in english and see it forked
in another language? specially when a exchange of information could have
solved the issue at a much earlier stage?
> > > Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
> > > and we are bound to it.
> >
> > Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
> > a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
> > message above.
>
> The official maintainer is in _no_ way responsible for the _translated_
> description of a package. Please, let translation teams do their work
> without interfeering.
When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on
descriptions? you or the dd?
> >
> > File a wishlist bug as you were told already:
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
>
> DDTP is not handled by BTS bugs.
Than please re-read my post. If believes that the french layout is better
why not appling it to all the descriptions?
> First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his
> po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know
> who you are you talking with.
Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar...
read my other posts please before saying so.
> Second, there are no policies for translations. DDTP translators have to
> respect the views of their language translation team, not of the
> maintainer. If you wish to change that view, join the translation team, do
> not impose the changes "upstream" (from the developer side). If you do not
> read the language or understand it then, at most, you can send a mail to
> the Debian translation coordinator [1]
That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is
the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it.
> > Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
> > all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
> > to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
> > layout alligned with the others.
> >
>
> They don't have to! Content and layout in a translation is part of what the
> translator has to do. If there are typographical rules that make necessary
> a layout change a translator has to apply them!
And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information?
> Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same
> sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in Spanish
> is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation.
Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout.
> [1] There is really no such position in Debian for all languages, but you
> can take the web translation list at
> www.debian.org/devel/website/translation_coordinators
> or try to find them in
> www.debian.org/international
thanks
Fabio
--
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues
http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp00004.html
Reply to: