Converting the docs to use po files would be an enormous undertaking. So
while I'm not opposed to it, per se, I'd have a number of questions.
* Who is going to do the work?
* Will we end up with the same richness of formatting that is currently
available to us in the docbook format?
I have a number of times looked at what it would take to convert the
docs to markdown or asciidoc, and have always ended up deciding that
we'll lose too much in the conversion.
However, I certainly wouldn't *oppose* such a change if there was
someone willing to do all of the work.
As for dead translations ... yeah, this is a problem. We used to have
very active translators in a few areas, but they have almost all gone
away, and I don't know how to attract new translators. I agree that our
workflow is too complicated, and this has resulted in some translator
interest being turned away because their work never got committed. I
think that having reviews is important, but perhaps having a "has not
been reviewed" indicator would be an adequate half-way.
--Rich
On 04/17/2016 01:20 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Hi docs@,
a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a web
based application in order to translate our documentation.
The proposal was about Transifex [2].
Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
itself: https://translate.apache.org/
It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
At least, it can use .po files.
Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
The workflow would be:
main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate updated
XML files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we actually do
The pros:
- IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
- trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in
the same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
- using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of
the text itself
- translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
people
- easy access to translation statistic
- svn integration
The cons:
- the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is
working on
- new tools and new intermediate file format
- more complex doc generation process
Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish
which sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome Luis),
everything else is more or less dead.
So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
process:
- Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
Pros, Cons...
- Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
translation changes?
- Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would be
a win?
Any thought?
CJ
[1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
[2] http://www.transifex.com
[3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
