Re: What about DDTSS do you (dis)like? - Handling of (common) errors
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: What about DDTSS do you (dis)like? - Handling of (common) errors
- From: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:07:56 +0200
- Message-id: <4E186ECC.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <BANLkTikrH1aKsJd+m5GAk+5Ai9RWudixcg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <BANLkTikrH1aKsJd+m5GAk+5Ai9RWudixcg@mail.gmail.com>
I'm not sure where to discuss this issue (and where to file the wishlist
Possible candidates seem to be debian-devel and debian-l10n-english.
A quote from the "Debian Developer's Reference":
8.4. Best current practice concerning l10n
* As a translator, if you find an error in the original text, make
sure to report it.
Translators are often the most attentive readers of a given text,
and if they
don't report the errors they find, nobody will.
Perhaps I'm not the only translator who encounters - well - deficiencies
descriptions. There is a wide range from
* typos such as spelling a software different from upstream's habits,
* wrong use of singular and plural (1) (possibly) worth a wishlist bug,
* formatting errors for enumerations,
* descriptions hard to understand (e.g. for scientific software) that
from a new wording.
Perhaps - again - I'm not the only translator postponing many bug
it is more fun translating than downloading <package>.diff.gz, editing
calling diff, writing an e-mail ... It is easier to write in your
In an ideal world the translator would click a button, an editor window
pops up, the
offending text is altered and some other buttons trigger the appropriate
ranging from automatic generation of bug reports (with patches) and NMUs
trivial changes such as typos up to a review of a rewritten text on
debian-l10n-english as most translators are not native speakers.
There are other approaches as well - e.g. new lintian checks or
pointing out problems not covered yet .
What are your thoughts and suggestions? Perhaps developers would consider
discussing their descriptions on mailing lists offending?