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

Re: Effort to reduce translatable strings in debian-edu-doc manuals



Hi Frans,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:31:19PM +0200, Frans Spiesschaert wrote:
> Wolfgang Schweer schreef op ma 27-07-2020 om 00:00 [+0200]:
> 
> > It's actually quite easy to create those $lang.add files without 
> > involving translators because only two strings need to be translated, 
> > with the translation already contained in the related PO file. Let me 
> > try to explain this using the content of the 
> > debian-edu-bullseye-manual.nb.add file as an example:
> 
> I am unsure how to comment on this, because I am confused about a few
> preliminary questions I have:
> 
> 1. what scheme exactly do we consider as the most preferable scheme for the
> future with regard to translation credits?

Thanks for raising these questions.
 
> As far as I understand, different schemes have been mentioned already, such
> as:
> 
> * translation copyright notices and credits for all languages that have a
> translation for a certain manual (let's say debian-edu-bullsaye manual) are
> included in the source (AllInOne.xml) of that manual and in all the
> generated manuals.
> This is the scheme that is in use now.

Right. I propose to change it. That's why I referred to the 
debian/copyright file of other comparable packages like e.g. 
debian-reference. No translators mentioned, see:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/-/raw/master/debian/copyright

> * all translation copyright notices and credits are dropped from the manual
> source and from all the generated manuals.

That's possible, but wouldn't honor the hard work of translators.

> But in between these two widely differing schemes, others were also
> mentioned, without however being clearly specified.
> 
> One could for instance think of:
> 
> * the manual source includes all translation copyright notices and credits
> for all languages that have a translation, but the translated documents
> only have that specific translation copyright notice and credits that is
> applicable to their own language.

That would force us to continue editing the wikis like before...
Adding people having translated a few strings via Weblate and thus 
listing also translations that are not published at all.

Also, compare it to a book translated from English into twenty other 
languages. There's probably a hint somewhere about the number of 
translations, but the English edition won't mention translator names. 
The Spanish edition would mention the person that did the Spanish
translation, though.

> * the manual source includes no translation copyright notices and credits,
> but the translated documents do have a specific translation copyright
> notice and credits that is applicable to their own language, while the
> English manual only has general copyright information and no copyright
> information about translations at all.

Yes, that's what I would prefer.
 
> Perhaps other schemes are conceivable too. Depending on the chosen scheme,
> the possible technical solutions could differ, as I see it.

Right, solutions would differ.
 
> 2. debian/copyright now depends on the actual scheme in use. So, if we
> should move away from it, this would affect the generation of that file.
> Is it important to take this relationship into account while choosing a
> scheme, or can we easily disregard this?

Agreed. The debian/copyright file wouldn't mention translators so need to 
be generated differently.
 
Wolfgang

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: