Hi all, I don't know if there was a private answer from Hartmut, but I want to restart the discussion, since the expected (main) benefit of the file-split doesn't work, but we already live with the disadvantages.
Additional to Goba's comments below, Slawomir has also outlined, that all <lang>/reference/*/functions.xml files are also in the .cvsignore which makes it impossible to translate new files, if somebody is afraid to change this. I've just had a short glance at e.g. file-entities.php, and it shouldn't be a problem to rely fully on the en/reference/*/functions.xml's, so that the equivalent files in the translation-dirs could be deleted. BUT since at least some de-translators are masters in forgetting the maintenance of their files, there are a view translated functions, which don't exist anymore in the en-tree. I'd personally say just forget them, but this should be commonly agreed (I don't consider it good to have all existing [en-]functions, and some orphaned but translated ones). What I mean: compare the TOC's of http://www.php.net/manual/de/ref.domxml.php and http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.domxml.php. And if we agree to leave such function-files alone: How to treat them in the future, if they aren't shown anywhere (before they fill up HDs for nothing)? Is a revcheck-entry enough (at least in <de> most people don't work with it [just in case they are still active translators])?? Thomas Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > Hi! > > I find it a bit confusing that both the EN and all the translations > have functions.xml files in reference subdirs. The goal of these > functions.xml files is to have all functions from EN to be part > of the manual in case they are not translated. But if the build > system uses the functions.xml file from the HU subdir, then the > untranslated functions won't be there... I have not checked how > the build system works, but IMHO the functions.xml files in the > translation subdirs are redundant and may lead to problems.. > > Goba >
