On 1/22/10, Jay Smith wrote:

> Alexandre's second point can be solved by a Wiki.  A Wiki would allow
> and encourage more people to become involved.
> However, I am ignorant of exactly what the input / output requirements
> of the "single-source effort" are exactly.  If possible, can somebody
> point me to a reference which describes how the documentation
> project/work itself is being done and what the inputs/outputs are and
> where they live?

IIRC wiki is offline now (that ism the potential documentation host
:-P), so I can't point you to the page.

We use DocBook/XML for storing original content in English and PO
files for storing translation. This is great for translating, because
you don't need to manually look for updated pages or watch them all
the time. You just see what messages in a PO file are marked as fuzzy
(changed) and edit them.

The workflow is:

Someone edits the original XML file. Translators run a command that
updates their translations (in PO files). Then they look at changes
(easy to do in any PO editor), apply changes and commit them to Git

As a side remark, I'm genuinely not impressed by wiki based
documentations. They are not exactly as manageable as I'd like them to
be. I'm judging by wiki.scribus.net for example.

FLOSS manuals is another example: we actually have a problem figuring
out who does what in the Inkscape manual, because despite of being
told to people silently edit something somewhere and never introduce
themselves or tell about their plans, so clashes are inevitable.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to