For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea.
As long as there are people interested in maintaining the translation, identifying deltas and easily translating just the deltas would NOT be difficult, however. Modern computer aided translation tools all use translation memories that automatically translate already translated segments and present only new/changed segments to the translator. No need for change bars etc. This assumes that somebody would have stewardship of the translation memory, that the people doing the translation would be willing to/capable of using the CAT tools, etc., but the technical translation technology is available to make this part of the equation not much of an issue. There are other reasons to not do this. Elsebeth ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On March 8, 2018 10:03 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:27:06 +0100 (CET) > > Marcel Schneider via Unicode unicode@unicode.org wrote: > > > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to maintain a > > > > translation, be it only the Nameslist. > > For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An > > alternative would be paragraph identification and a list of changed > > paragraphs. The section number in TUS is too coarse for giving text > > locations, and page numbers are inherently changeable. > > Richard.
