Re: Assessing the outdatedness of our web site translations
Martin Quinson:
> Yeah. I guess you're right. Where do you put the limit then (sorry if
> you already said that I fail to remember) ? One year ? Six months ?
My initial thought is six months. I think a year is much too long, six
months is more reasonable.
> And what if the change was just a typo fix in english and the
> translators never bothered updating its number?
Then they are not paying attention. It's as simple as that. With the
current system, there is no way of differentiating between "small" and
"big" changes. Also, sometimes typos in English makes the text mean
something completely different, so the translators need to e alert and
check even the smallest changes for relevancy.
> I think this should keep manual, and not automatic...
Having to run it manually would probably just make people forget about
it. Kind of like with the tidy/validator runs...
Gerfried Fuchs:
> Especially in webwml it is even a much smaller problem: You can after
> a cvs rm always check out the last version and add it back to
> reactivate the translation
Exactly. The loss is minimal when the translation is later
re-activated.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Reply to: