On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:02:11PM +0000, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > Can you point to templates that would assist in creating lists of > packages with descriptions of each? I didn't see anything there that > was applicable. If you look at devel/debian-jr/packaged.wml you'll > see what I'm trying to accomplish. > It's not clear how you can do better than what you've done. You #include files containing an html formatted list. The format for the packages is so simple that using a tag won't make things any simpler. I would use names like packaged.main and packaged.non-us for the included files, but that is only a suggestion.
> OK, now I see the slices in the y2k .data files, and yes, I think > I have missed the point here somewhat ... my data includes textual > information that will probably want translating. The package names > themselves, of course, remain untranslated, but the "description" > (or notes/comments) column contains translatable data. I wanted > to seperate this into a different file for the convenience of keeping > all the package info in one place. > I have used two methods for this type of thing depending on how frequently changes are made. If changes will be infrequent, I just let the translators make a local copy of a file. If changes are frequent, I would have all translations #include the version in the english directory which includes a slice for every language (those [EN::][DE::][FR::] things) for every string. When adding a new item, a copy of the english text is added for every language (unless you can translate them yourself). This way, every translation will see the string even if they don't update the translation for a while. Of course, it will be in English until it is translated. > Hm, then it seems I should *not* use .data to indicate this files since > they contain translatable data. This leaves me wondering if I should > invent another extension, or if .wml will do. That is, does every .wml > file (even included ones) get converted to .html? If I don't want it > converted (because it's just going to be sucked into another file and > *that* will be converted to html instea), do I have to play tricks with > the Makefiles? > Yes, every file ending in .wml is run through wml. I wouldn't suggest modifying the makefiles to get around this. Sometime in the future we will probably remove all the Makefiles and use wmk. wmk comes with wml and would do most everything(*) the current makefile structure does. (*)wmk would not do anything about images. I haven't decided how to deal with this. -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
