Re: Future website infrastructure? Internationalization considerations...
- From: Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>
- To: gnome-web-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Future website infrastructure? Internationalization considerations...
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:07:08 +0100
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 09:19:23PM +0100, Christian Neumair wrote:
> Developer documentation translation might not be useful at this point,
> especially since we'll have to work on the quality of the current docs
> before translating them.
That is library.gnome.org, not www.gnome.org. As specified on the wiki,
www.gnome.org should be a fully translated marketing website (very
minimal). News about GNOME, what it is, etc. IMO the release notes
should be on library.gnome.org, not www.gnome.org.
> 1. Plone
> This mailing list's archive seems to suggest that a Plone migration is
> planned, and basic code has been in SVN for a while.
IIRC lots of content is available.
> On the other hand, according to Murray Cumming (IRC), no proper Plone
> l10n seems to be possible as of writing, and I couldn't find any plans
> when it would be available.
There has been various work done on the Plone installation. However,
progress stalls every now and then unfortunately. I thought i18n was
possible, this is why Plone was chosen.. I think.
> 2. webwmr (debian)
> Because of the excellent language selection facilities on debian.org,
> today I asked on debian-www, and they offer their webwmr code on debian
> CVS: The websites seem to be static [compiled with a template system
> from CVS], with internationalized templates. The translator can receive
> change notifications through email (including diffs), and update his own
> static (translated) page template.
Seems same as current system except with po files included. Not a really
nice solution... hrm.. it really is called webwml.. so it is the same
with more stuff added.
> 3. MoinMoin
> It has also been proposed to migrate to live.gnome.org (i.e. MoinMoin).
> Page-specific l10n doesn't seem to be planned at all, and the page
> contents' layout doesn't seem to be arbitrarily complex HTML, just some
> basic markup.
I do not think a wiki is good for translators. This as it doesn't really
handle when the original content is changed.
> Instead of migrating back and forth between various systems, maybe we
> should look into keeping the current architecture, writing our own
> translation system, and stick with static pages. The translation could
> be po-based, or custom language-specific static pages [or templates]
> could be created and committed (similar to webwmr).
Currently we use wml. But whatever works goes.
] [Thread Prev