I agree for simple rst files. What I don't see is how you would handle autodoc content ?
2008/11/20 Yarko Tymciurak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. > 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? > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
