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

updates to the security pages and translations

In order to keep any translations of the security pages up to date,
it is best if all the translations are in one file. This way any
changes will be seen by all translations immediately - even if it
means that some of the text is in English.

I am thus proposing the following. I'd appreciate feedback from the
people actually maintaining the security pages. If there are problems
with this it is best to make them known now.

Some tags need to be added to the security template, security.wml:
Source archives, Source (this and the previous need to be standardized),
Intel architecture, Motorola 680x0 architecture, etc.
The tags will then be used in place of the English originals.

The definition of the <description> tag in every security page needs
to use slices, e.g.
<define-tag description whitespace=delete>
   [EN:buffer overflows in bootpd and ftp:]
	[HR:Prekoraèenja buffera u bootpdu i ftpu:]
A note needs to be made that tags taking a 'yes' or 'no' response should
not be translated as they are used in the template file to create
the proper text.

Any text on the page needs to use slices. The person who creates the page
should use slices around any text in the body. They don't need to worry
about adding slices for any translations as they don't exist yet.
When a translator translates a page, they make the modifications to
the version in english/security/ and add a file to <lang>/security/
with only a single line:
#use ../../../english/security/1999/abc.wml
     (this should be the actual path to the english version)

When an existing page is modified, any added text must create slices
for any existing translations using the english text so that the
translations aren't missing any vital info. It is better for someone
to be hit by some foreign text than to totally miss something important.

Under no circumstances is it the responsibility of the security personnel
to update translations.

Jay Treacy

Reply to: