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

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.

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.




Reply to: