* Denis Barbier (barbier@linuxfr.org) wrote : > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:11:36PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > This is silly, we have different typographic rules, and thus layout may > > > change. Why is it a problem? > > > > The only change that was done from the previous version of the description > > was s/PHP3/PHP. I find difficult to believe that french grammar and > > typographic rules have changed so much in the last 4 months, when the > > previous release was done and the translation was alligned to the actual > > format, but everything is possible in this world. > > Yeah, in this world reviewers sometimes improve wording and send suggestions > to translators, who in turn modify their translations accordingly. I know > it sounds incredible, but it happens. > Wording, as you so sarcastically put it, is not the same as layout. > > If you want a different description please file a wishlist bug and we will > > evaluate it. > > I am not qualified to improve English description, you may ask on > debian-l10n-english if you want. > So, you're not qualified to improve the description, but you think that yours is better anyway? How does that work? > > In the meantime it would be nice that you (or who did that change) > > will reallign the description with all the others. > > Sorry, I do not know what changes you are talking about (I never read this > description before), but current translation sounds quite good to me. > We don't have a problem with the *translation* in purely technical english -> french terms. We have a problem with the french translater arbitrarily and with no discussion changing the format and nature of the description. We put a fair amount of thought, discussion and care into writing the discription, and at the end of that process we basically discarded a layout fairly similar to the one that the french translater has adopted because we did not think that it was suitable. > > It is a maintainer responsability to keep the description updated in all > > its part (format included). > > Could you be more explicit? I see nothing wrong with the format used here. > It is not the format that we chose. As such, and if you're intransingence continues, we're only left with one option, to veto the translation. Which I don't think anyone wants, since it would put to waste a lot of time and energy which we are grateful for. Cheers, -Thom
Attachment:
pgph9IUh7GVfg.pgp
Description: PGP signature