On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Yarko Tymciurak wrote:

> Oh!   I thought docstrings to set the language / encoding of the  
> file (self-document), with the directories just containing fully  
> translated sources - entire copies of the work.
>
> That seems simple, and ultimately sufficient.  It's not a dynamic  
> web site, where one must inject a translated messages in otherwise  
> unknown content.
>
> With Sphinx, the content in total I expect to be translated.  Why  
> lookup? (e.g. gettext style)?  Why "include other translated  
> file"?    Why not just process a file(s) which is(are) the  
> translation?
>
> Maybe that is the first question.
>
> Simpler is better.

+1

>
> And if this is sufficient, then a makefile should be able to handle  
> most (if not all) of this, including common area for media and  
> styling.   Really, I think all that is needed is to separate the  
> content files.
>
> What do you think?

+1

>
> Regards,
> Yarko
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Christophe de VIENNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> I guess it is true if there is only 2, may be 3 languages to maintain.
> For more languages it can become really painfull. I can't image
> maintaining docstrings with 10 languages !
>
> In this later case (a lot of translations), the gettext solution looks
> more adequate.
>
> Any other though on this subject anybody ?
>
> Christophe
>
> 2008/11/20 Yarko Tymciurak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...  which makes your first request (simple directive to select  
> directory)
> > seem like the simplest and perhaps correct solution for Sphinx  
> Documents...
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Christophe de VIENNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This way would look a lot like gettext integration.
> >>
> >> Sphinx would submit any paragraph or title it meets to gettext,  
> and we
> >> would "only" have to write an adequate extractor, probably a new
> >> sphinx builder.
> >>
> >> This way there would be no need to modify any extension, and the
> >> "translate" directive would become almost unnecessary.
> >>
> >> That said, I do not know how painfull it would be to translate big
> >> portions of text with gettext (I mean compared to short strings).
> >>
> >> thinking too...
> >>
> >> 2008/11/20 Yarko Tymciurak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > ...still thinking out loud, I think it would be easier to give  
> someone a
> >> > file to translate (perhaps?) if the idiom followed something  
> along these
> >> > lines:
> >> > .. translate::  "some string"
> >> > and
> >> > .. translate::  %lang%/chapter1.rst
> >> >
> >> > for translated rst files
> >> > The advantage would be to have one place where %lang 
> %_strings.rst, and
> >> > the
> >> > various other files (e.g. chapter1.rst) existed.  Simultaneous
> >> > translation
> >> > efforts of a work (at least) would not need to be merged then.
> >> > I think the only work would be (in the second case) to do %lang%
> >> > substitution before a simple include directive, and a Python  
> dictionary
> >> > lookup on a file named by convention in the first case.
> >> > I wonder how terrible the lookups could get, and (to keep  
> consistent w/
> >> > behavior of other directives) how to manage paragraph  
> translations, such
> >> > as:
> >> > .. translate::
> >> >   * a list
> >> >   * of items
> >> > ... still thinking...
> >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Christophe de VIENNE
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> 2008/11/17 Yarko Tymciurak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >> > I am thinking out loud here:
> >> >> > This is an interesting question.
> >> >> > I can imagine for some types of text (i.e. instructions)  it  
> would be
> >> >> > easier
> >> >> > to keep consistent is the various language versions were in  
> the same
> >> >> > file,
> >> >> > output by selector (so the .rst files themselves become
> >> >> > self-contained
> >> >> > translation files), and for other situations (where concepts  
> are more
> >> >> > important) that context be coherently developed in one  
> language.  I
> >> >> > wonder
> >> >> > if having the former structure  (language conditional  
> selector) could
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > useful base - and larger context sections be included from  
> files,
> >> >> > e.g.
> >> >> > something that looks like:
> >> >> > --------------------------------
> >> >> > .. lang:: en
> >> >> > Contents
> >> >> > .. lang:: fr
> >> >> > Contenu
> >> >> > .. lang::  it
> >> >> > Soddisfare
> >> >> >
> >> >> > .. include::  chapter1.%lang%.rst
> >> >> > or perhaps
> >> >> > .. include::  %lang$/chapter1.rst
> >> >> > ------------------------------------
> >> >> > The form I've written might be wrong - I mainly want to get  
> the
> >> >> > concept
> >> >> > accross .... at the top of the file, or at build time, some  
> language
> >> >> > (or
> >> >> > lang) setting would be made...
> >> >>
> >> >> Ideally we would have a "languages" variable in conf.py, along  
> with a
> >> >> default_language.
> >> >> If such options are used, the builders would be run one time  
> for each
> >> >> language and the language code appended to the output  
> directory name.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I wonder if this wouldn't be useful and flexible idiom for  
> authors?
> >> >>
> >> >> It think it looks great. That would be perfect for my needs
> >> >>
> >> >> > Reasonable to implement?
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no idea. If it is, I would be happy to give a hand.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Yarko
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Christophe de VIENNE
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I will need to maintain my documentation in french and in  
> english. I
> >> >> >> would like to know if some of you do such a thing, and how  
> to you
> >> >> >> proceed ?
> >> >> >> My idea is to have two different roots, en and fr which are  
> totally
> >> >> >> independent. I wonder if there is anything in sphinx to  
> make this
> >> >> >> easier.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Especially for the autodoc extension : It would be great if  
> I could
> >> >> >> have both versions as docstrings with a directive to tell  
> sphinx the
> >> >> >> language of the text.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for any hint on this issue,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Christophe
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sphinx-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to