Re: Debian Dictionary
Am Mittwoch, 26.01.05 um 14:50 Uhr schrieb Helmut Wollmersdorfer:
- common language, e.g. Webster's for English (or Duden for German)
- computer language, e.g. The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
These are dicts available for a quick few, for sure.
- Unix/Linux language, e.g.
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/html/
Here it needs some more time to find the definition. Not everyone is a
living address book. And not everyone is online connected to the
internet, when searching for the meaning of a word or phrase.
- Debian language
- Debian Maintainer language
That is something the dicts are for. Debian language is not selef
explaing.
During a wording review of a document I check against a hierarchy of
dicts. This means that every word not found in an upper context needs
a definition to be understandable.
What do you mean with "in an upper" context here?
1) Agree on uniform format, administration and infrastructure for dicts
or glossaries within the Debian Project
E.g. docbook-xml supports AFAIK glossaries.
Docbook xml is something, that can be produced by a program - I am
sure, that I can add something like that to the makdict program. But if
you do not have lots of people willingly to collect dict entries and
translations, you loose, if you tell, oh, yes, you can collect, but you
have to deliver as xml file. That is, why I took that special format
with two colons as a divider.
2) Develop or collect utilities for conversion in different formats
like dictd, HTML, TeX, plain text etc.
Good Idea. But wait with the dicts until someone has done and
documented?
The current dict pages seem to be from 1999 or something like that.
Maybe, there is a reason, that Debian pages still come without any
content for me there?
3) Have dicts or glossaries of debian documents in a separate file.
This makes it possible to include such a dictionary in the specific
document, or include it to other dictionaries as well.
That is something, I do not understand. different files for any
documentation? All the words, I collected and me and others translated
came from different sources: Discussions in IRC, mailing lists or even
the debian web pages or other sources.
1) to 3) are not technically difficult. It's more a problem of
coordination, standardization, discipline, and at least hard work for
the doc-writers and doc-reviewers.
That for sure is wrong, if you want many people without much technical
knowledge collect dict entries, without having one person (or even
more) with lots of time, putting everything in the right format.
My idea was making the maintenance as simple as possible. And my
current experience shows, that I would have got not much more than my
own translations, if I had not taken the simple source format.
For sure, I look at things different than a DD. I am looking at it as a
user, who does not want to search through the web on every not clearly
known word, acronym or phrase.
greetings
Jutta
--
http://www.witch.westfalen.de
http://witch.muensterland.org
Reply to: