Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Richard Braakman wrote:
>Whoops, I misread the very part I quoted! Yes, I think this says
>that you may translate Invariant Sections. I was momentarily
>confused by the phrasing ("you may include translations" vs.
>"you may translate").
Of course, it then makes sense to make your translation an invarient
section (since it's also political speach) - sucks if it's a bad
translation of the original invarient section. If you're hit by a bus,
anyone who wants an accurate translation is either going to have to
stick *another* invarient section on, or throw away the work you did.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org