On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Martin Quinson wrote:
[...]
Ok, sorry for misinterpreting your statement, then. I agree that
those tags
do imply some extra burden on the translator shoulder. But I guess there is
not much we can do.
The solution may come from the editors. kbabel could well have an editing
mode in WYSIWYG, undertanding and dealing properly with docbook tags. It
should be doable, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea for now, since
there is so much possible way to screw things up around.
As said in the signature of the previous mail, I do belive that things must
be made as easy as possible, but not easier. ;)
True. I think that the editors shouldn't interpret these things. It's a
particular thing of po4a, and we should assume that the translators will
have a minimal intelligence :P
> > But if I had to redo the man module now, I'd go for
docbook-like tag intead
> > of pod notation. But I don't plan to change that for now...
>
> I think this isn't necessary by now.
It could be made an option, but the issue is that if the author makes its
pot with one notation and the translator with another, you'll get fuzzies.
I think we should take an arbitrary decision and don't include this
option, to avoid this issue about the fuzzies (and to reuse translations
between projects, where each one could use a different option).
Then, we should decide between one of these:
1) we use the same tag syntax for all the modules: this makes po4a more
consistent (now that it's easy to mix more than one document format
with po4a(1)), and maybe some translations could be reused between
formats
2) each module can use its own format tagging: it makes modules easier to
write
In my personal opinion, I also like the docbook tagging more than the pod
one. I'd like to follow the 1) option, although it's a lot of work for
reworking the current man/pod modules.
Unless you implement also a on the fly convertion, but I'm not
sure it
worths the work.
It's an unnecesary complication.
Regards,
Jordi Vilalta