Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:23:58AM +0000, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:18:50PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> Of course. However, most translators welcome po enthusiastically,
> as it eases their maintainance work a lot.
> > > 2. How about changing from debiandoc to DocBook XML (which has
> > > special "qanda" elements for FAQs, tables and other nice stuff)?
> > This would fuzzy translations.
> I would first change SGML to XML than introduce po4a.
Switching to XML and po4a would probably a lot easier if translations
are mostly up-to-date. Lets see how many teams update their files ...
> > Also note that DocBook XML doesn't
> > support all languages (at least not for all formats such as PDF).
> Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
> debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?
Problematic would probably Chinese (zh_CN) (it seems there exists no
Japanese translation of the FAQ yet?) Maybe it works with newer versions
but the last time I heard about it fop failed for PDF creation of Asian
languages. You should be able to test this on a "Hello World" example.
debiandoc supports more or less all languages we have translations in
DDP for. Exceptions are greek and I think also Vietnamese (at least for
> With having at least two toolchains to create PDF from DocBook XML
> (dblatex and fop/xmlroff), I thought DocBook is not too bad, but
> maybe I'm undervaluing our own good old format here :~)
The repository-howto document (which uses XML as well) was also once
affected by build problems and the output contained garbage. IIRC I
found a partial workaround in the past. See the log for details.
I think there are also many languages which are supported by LaTeX but
not plain TeX which is used by at least one of the toolchains.
I suggest before converting to check the build status of current DDP
documents even if the content is outdated. So we could get an impression
of the tools.