> 1) node/anchor/float identifier remains untranslated
> 2) an anchor with the untranslated name is added for each node
> (and anchor and float)
> 3) there is a mention in the Texinfo code of the untranslated name,
> without any effect on the output (for example ignored macro
> argument).
> 4) no untranslated name at all.
>
> I think that option 1) is not in line with the Texinfo format design,
> where nodes can often appear in the output.
>
> Option 2) should be practical in a transitory period for external manuals
> linking to partially translated manuals.
> 3) allows to do some grepping and similar (untranslated name could also
> be obtained from the Texinfo tree using source marks) for maintainance,
> and allows english speaking people to understand where in the manual one
> is, but is otherwise similar to 4).
>
> What we could recommend:
>
> My proposal is to recommend to use 2) in the short term, and to switch
> to 3) or 4) (depending on the need) in the long term when the
> translation is complete enough and has been complete for some time. 2)
> could also be used in the long term, but there is no clear use case
> (except maybe for the lilypond manual).
>
> Remarks, thoughts?
I would omit option 2 completely. It's too fragile IMHO; it might
easily happen that anchors get inadvertently omitted if sections are
moved around in a document. I think the same is true for option 4": I
consider this option a nightmare to maintain if the documentation gets
extended and rearranged but no translators are still active.
Consequently, I favor option 3 followed by option 1 for documents
started from scratch.
Werner
