Re: More on xml errors in documentation

On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García wrote:
2013/4/6 Gabor Kelemen <kelemeng gnome hu>
        I think these kinds of warnings are useful, until it is not
        to fix all of them :).

Why not? I'm not sure about it. If Documentation team adds some tags
to the original strings, translators should keep those strings. Also,
having freedom to add our own tags to translated string may break the
building process so fixing those errors should be fixed.

I don't know how Mallard documents work, and how translators have to
deal with tags (I mean: should we add or remove tags when translating
strings? Shouldn't it be done by the Documentation team?) I think
translators shouldn't change the format adding or removing tags
(althouhg it doesn't break the compilation), but having some comments
from docs team would be really useful.

I think there are cases where it's worthwhile for translators to add
tags, but they're probably the exception. Thinking out loud:

* East Asian languages might want to add Ruby markup. And this will
actually work correctly in 3.10.

* Some languages might want to use an English word for a technical
term when there isn't yet an established local word. They might want
to mark this with <em>.

* The instructions for certain actions on different keyboard layouts
might involve more or fewer <key> elements than for en-US.

If we really end up getting a lot of false positives, or if we want
to turn these checks into hard pre-commit checks, we could add some
sort of markup to allow translators to say "I know what I'm doing in
this case". But that can be a hassle, so it's only worthwhile if we
have a real problem with false positives.


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