On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 09:38:12PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:04:58PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > I think you broke compatibility with XML & SGML tools.  > > > >  both are ASCII only. I should have react with: Why latin1 and how does it fit in XML & SGML tools? I think you broke compatibility with those tools. I was wrong about the ASCII-only argument. > > > 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. > [snip] > > > 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". > > > > My concern is that the source is not pure 7-bit ASCII. > > Please note that all versions of Release Notes (except English one) > use 8bit characters. Do you really expect that a Japanese translator > writes &entity1;&entity2;&entity3;...? > > > It should ASCII only for XML and SGML. > > But debiandoc-sgml supports all common locales, especially latin1, > latin2,... > > > Jens, that you spend time on the release notes is good. > > I do respect that. > > > > But your arguments to break stuff are poor. > > Maybe. I agree that pure ASCII has advantages but the current file can > easily converted to another locale using iconv, recode, konwert, ... > > > * it is hard to proofread größe dateien > > It is! > > > 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. > > I would really like to know other people's opinions. > > > As one volunteer to another volunteer: > > > > Please revert the latin1 changes > > First I will wait for more feedback. If the majority agrees with you I > will revert my changes (but what about name="Übersetzungen" which > doesn't work for url tags?). Here feedback from me, based on my previous posting. | My concern is that the source is not pure 7-bit ASCII. | It should ASCII only for XML and SGML. I was wrong, at least incomplete, ISO 10646 is allowed. | Jens, that you spend time on the release notes is good. | I do respect that. I stay with that :-) | But your arguments to break stuff are poor. I shall calm down. | * The website has latin1 | That is because it is converted to latin1 | With latin1 "precompiled" codes, you can't convert to other encodings See below | * 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 See below | * 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. The blobs are allowed, when they are UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoded. | As one volunteer to another volunteer: | | Please revert the latin1 changes I couldn't find where latin1 and UTF-8 differ for our usage, release-notes.de.sgml. I could be that we are save. I did found that latin1 ~~ rfc1345 ~~ iso 8859 UTF-8 ~~ rfc3629 ~~ iso 10646 But not that ë is for both the same. Where it now cost time, let _assume_ they are equal. Cheers Geert Stappers  please prove me wrong, but a confirmation is also welcome.
Description: Digital signature