Re: Effort to reduce translatable strings in debian-edu-doc manuals
Hi Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Schweer schreef op di 04-08-2020 om 23:11 [+0200]:
> Hi Frans,
>
>
> The place will be the related Po4a addendum file. In case a new PO
> translation file is added, the addendum file needs to be created - using
> an existing one as sample.
Ok. I'll try and keep this in mind when updating translations made via
weblate.
>
> >
> > I think working with an .add file is the way to go. It would be great
> > if
> > you could realize this.
>
> Done now, the manuals including translater credits are here:
> https://jenkins.debian.net/userContent/debian-edu-doc/
Cool. This looks very good. I am very impressed with the speed with which
you have accomplished this.
>
> > In a initial stage, I agree that it will be easiest to edit those .add
> > files on our own. However, I can imagine that for some languages native
> > speakers would find the wording 'Authors of the translation' a bit
> > suboptimal.
>
> Yes, thanks for the hint; I've reduced this to 'Translation:'
>
> > Maybe in the future we could find a way to add
> >
> > #. type: Content of: <article><addendum><para>
> > msgid "The following persons contributed to the translation of this
> > manual:"
> > msgstr ""
> >
> > as a final string at the end of the debian-edu-xxx-manual.pot of the
> > testing release, so that native speakers could provide a sentence that
> > feels good in their language.
> > But for the moment I don't see how this could be integrated in the
> > current
> > proces of building the manual without to much hassle.
>
> I suspect that integration into debian-edu-xxx-manual.pot won't be
> possible like that - at least to my understanding. Of course, those
> translators using Git can use a more verbose stanza.
I understand. I was thinking about such a method out of my concern that
with languages about which we do not have any knowledge at all, it is
difficult to estimate what could be a good wording for that language.
Therefore I was looking for a method to have input from native speakers.
But with the concise wording "translators", there is probably little chance
of making a mistake here.
>
> > > The procedure for the Bullseye manual is different from the
> > > one for the legacy manuals (Audacity, Buster, ITIL, Rosegarden).
>
> This difference shows up in XML <section>, where the Bullseye manual is
> missing id='xx' as opposed to the legacy ones. Reason for this due to
> the fact that the Docbook export from wiki.debian.org changed after the
> system running the wiki has been updated to Buster (iirc).
I see. I noticed the difference when looking at scripts/get_manual.
>
> > I would be in favour of building a debian-edu-doc-xx binary with the
> > manuals for the current and the previous release and a debian-edu-doc-
> > legacy-xx binary with the manuals whose content is no longer updated.
> > Outdated documentation that is no longer actively maintained, rapidly
> > collects documentation-bitrot and that creates a negative image for the
> > whole project. With a legacy binary this could be avoided, without
> > dropping
> > those manuals entirely. And if someone ever would step in to update the
> > content of one of those manuals again, that manual could easily
> > reintegrate
> > the debian-edu-doc binary. In the meantime I would even be in favour of
> > no
> > longer actively present those manuals for translation.
>
> Agreed, that sounds like something to be considered.
>
> > PS: I'am fine with starting new threads, should we feel the need to
> > discuss
> > certain aspects a bit more in depth.
>
> Yes, maybe separate the filtering and binary package issues?
Agreed.
Frans
Reply to: