Re: RFI: debiandoc-sgml V2

[barbier@linuxfr.org (Denis Barbier)]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:58:51PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
> 3. SGML normalization.
> 
> Normalizing SGML code. For example, <p> ... -> <p> ... </p>.

Agree, IMO Debiandoc DTD is too laxist; in order to ease writing parsing
tools, it would really help if optional elements were avoided.
When we discuss on debian-www how to generate XHTML pages, we found that
those optional elements were confusing, e.g. one could want to replace
  <p>
  <ul>
    <li>foo
    <li>bar
  </ul>
by
  <p>
  <ul>
    <li>foo
    <li>bar
  </ul>
  </p>
whereas this is incorrect and must be written
  <p></p>
  <ul>
    <li>foo
    <li>bar
  </ul>

So in this particular case, optional P end element is only useful to
hide misused syntax.

[...]
> 6. I wish to have some translation framework implemented.  

Me too :)

> Denis Barbier seems to be developing interesting tool but if it is
> integrated into debiandoc-sgml, it shall be nicer.

Such a translation framework should be discussed and documented before
it is implemented in debiandoc-sgml; in fact this framework does
certainly not depend upon source format, some general lines could
be drawn.

Here are some thoughts, we could discuss them and others on debian-i18n:
  * Translated text must be bound to original, i.e. anyone should
    be able by reading a translated file either to determine original
    file version (this option is used for our web pages) or to be
    informed that this translation is outdated (gettext PO files or
    Debconf templates files when translated and master templates
    are different files).
  * For large documents, tools should help tracking which parts are
    outdated.  This implies that documents may be automatically split
    into small pieces (paragraphs, sections, ...).  For instance, b-f
    installation manual mix marked sections, paragraphs, sections and
    optional elements which forbids such a split, so this document
    is not easily manageable.  We have to find a solution which
    provides the same advantages without this drawback.
  * Tools should allow translators to add text.
  * Encoding must either be utf8 or defined in source file (this is
    for instance not the case with Debconf templates files and SGML
    documents AFAICT).
  * Source files should contain some informations on how to contact
    latest translator (as in PO file header).  Date information could
    also be useful.

Denis


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org