Re: About translating documents (.xml/.sgml) in GNOME

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

fre 2003-01-31 klockan 15.55 skrev Bernd Groh:
> This, of course, (and that's the reason I really don't like this idea) 
> brings all the problems. If translation is done in PO-style, you have to 
> create new entries. Entries for which there is no original. How do you 
> want to handle this? Make up unique dummy-strings to be used as msgid's? 
> These not only have to be unique to the file, but unique to the 
> database, since else you cannot really use a po-database, else you'll 
> get all the wrong placements. Alternatively, use the translation not 
> only as msgstr, but also as msgid? What do you do when you have an 
> update to the original and try a new merge? Place a unique character 
> sequence in front of the translation to be able to determine the things 
> you have to leave out? Like the opposite of not marking it for 
> translation? Well, it's doable but not very nice, as far as I can see. 

I've yet to experience such a situation where extra paragraphs are
needed (perhaps because I'm only experienced with translating into
Swedish), but wouldn't it be possible to add extra paragrahps as needed
in the msgstr at the appropriate places, and have the conversion tool
accomodate for that when merging back? An example:

msgid ""
"A paragraph in the original. Foo bar veni vidi vici etc."
msgstr ""
"Ett stycke i originalet. Apa veni vidi vici osv.\n"
"\n"
"Andra stycket i originalet, osv. Kan inte skriva bra exempel."

The conversion tool would treat the single "\n" on a line by itself as
the start of a new paragraph. Then you have solved the "translations
need extra entries" problem (here illustrated by adding an extra
paragraph), if I understand the description of the problem correctly.
And you've also specified in which order and place the extra entry
should occur. I doubt that adding anything besides extra paragraphs will
be a common action.


> Next, you will have to extend your tool (we're using kbabel), since 
> adding new entries is generally not supported. That requires more 
> engineering effort on a third-party tool.
> 
> IMO, if a document is anticipated to undergo quite a few such changes, 
> then I don't think PO-files are a good option.

Why? Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to me
that this is purely a design issue with an infrequent issue, and an
issue that the conversion tool alone needs to handle. There's no problem
with the po format itself here, and no problem that any format (besides
XML or any other markup based format) wouldn't encounter aswell. And the
drawbacks of translating entire markup-based documents we already know.


> I'd rather convert the 
> whole thing into something that gives me something a little more 
> WYSIWYG.

Docbook isn't wysiwyg to begin with. ;-)


Christian