Re: More on xml errors in documentation

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

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
>         compulsory
>         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.

--
Shaun