Re^6: some suggestions for docreg
Am 04.05.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ...
APH> That's a technical problem and has technical solutions. Say we have a
APH> local knob for the local sysadmin saying "do prefer German
APH> documentation". Then a format could provide a translation of the
APH> section and the abstract. Perhaps when both English and German are
APH> available, German is presented instead.
I can#t see the connection. You#ve suggested the following:
Title: Printing HOWTO
Abstract: Descripes printing on a Linux system
And this will *not* work. I want a *German* description. So we need one
entry/language, but of course we could use the same DocID. But I would
prefer a link to the other DocID:
Title: Printing HOWTO
Title: Drucker HOWTO
Abstract: Beschreibt das Drucken unter Linux
With this syntax I have descriptions in both languages. And we need such a
feature like DocID_orig for packages like doc-linux-<language>, because
the HOWTOs are in several packages.
APH> real-world representation. We must stick to these abstractions unless
APH> there's a *real* *good* reason to break them. This is not such a
I don#t understand that. Please descripe, how you would solve this
problem. I don#t see your solution.
APH> Consider if we had 7 different transations of the SCSI FAQ, all as
APH> different entities; how could we manage them as one document per se?
APH> We couldn't. So we're diluting the operative power of our own
I don#t understand your point. Could you give an example?
APH> The operative issues there are whether documents need to be
APH> *constrained* to the domain or whether the domain may be extended in
APH> certain situations. My view is that the domain ought to be
APH> constrained but that a document may also be able to define a "scope"
APH> (i.e., gcc) which is a leaf on the DDH node tree.
I don#t understand that. Sorry. Are you talking about the possiblity to
create new sections? We#re talking about documents and not about sections!
APH> Marco, over and over again you seem to lose sight of the operative
APH> Please try to keep those abstractions at the front of
APH> your mind and forget the technical issues for now. I believe in
Sorry, but translations are important for the standard. I#m not talking
about the titles of sections! I#m talking about titles and abstracts of
documents. And this problem is very important for our standard.
APH> strong abstractions first, code later;
I#ve never talked about the code. Once again:
1.) German documents need a description/title in German, French ...
German documents *don#t* need a description/title in English!
=> we can#t have more than one Language/DocID
2.) We need a connection between a document in several languages.
Therefor we need something like DocID_orig:
As German user I don#t want English descriptions/titles of German
APH> I also believe in keeping it
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: email@example.com http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com