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

Re: DDP CVS commit by jseidel: ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/de release-note ...

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 06:24:17PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 05:57:22PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 09:30:55AM -0700, DDP CVS wrote:
> > > Modified files:
> > > 	manuals.sgml/release-notes/de: release-notes.de.sgml 
> > > 
> > > Log message:
> > > 	use latin1 encoding instead of HTML entities to simplify proofreading
> > >       and to increase compatibility with various tools
> > 
> > And which tools are that?
> > I think you broke compatibility with XML & SGML tools. [1]
> > [1] both are ASCII only.
> OK, your're partially right.
> The old code using &uuml; and &szlig; in each third word makes the SGML
> source code nearly unreadable. Please note that the previous version
> already contained a mixture of latin1 and ASCII.
> I apply very often a grep -ri "errror" on German texts I maintain and
> proofread to find and fix errors. I also wrote a few minor scripts which
> check for permutation of characters, ... which is much faster than spell
> checkers.
> IIRC aspell or ispell has trouble with HTML entities (I'm not sure about
> this). I know both support a HTML option but ...
> I also found a missing umlaut in the output (last PDF page) because
> <url id="&url-debian-i18n;" name="&Uuml;bersetzungen">
> was used but which works great using name="Übersetzungen".
> PS: Please note that the website uses latin1 encoding as well. Nobody
> complained ...

My concern is that the source is not pure 7-bit ASCII.
It should ASCII only for XML and SGML.

Jens, that you spend time on the release notes is good.
I do respect that.

But your arguments to break stuff are poor.

* The website has latin1
That is because it is converted to latin1
With latin1 "precompiled" codes, you can't convert to other encodings

* aspell can't handle HTML entities.
Then use another tool or aspell on another file format

* the source had already latin1 codes.
That has you set on the wrong track,
but is no excuus to go further downhill

* it is hard to proofread gr&ouml;&szlig;e dateien
Consider the SGML source as computer program source
and proofreading is running the programm.
Each "bug" you find, has to be modified in the source.
The edit-compile-test cycle can indeed be boring,
you shouldn't cheat by implementing "compiled blobs"
in the source code.

As one volunteer to another volunteer:

  Please revert the latin1 changes

Geert Stappers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: