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: <snip/> > > > 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 ü and ß 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="Übersetzungen"> > 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 größe 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 Cheers Geert Stappers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature