httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: Antwort: [STATUS] (httpd-docs-1.3) Wed Feb 27 23:45:21 EST 2002
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:48:44 GMT
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 wrote:

> Hi Ken,
> > * We appear to have people working on translation into the following
> languages.
> > [Should we attempt to get a known-current authorlist together? --jsl]
> > - Catalan (.ca)
> > - Czech Republic (.cz)
> > - German (.de)
> I think it could be a good idea to enhance the language list above by at
> least adding _one_ person (i. e. mail address) as the "coordinator" of
> translations into this language, who should then commit himself to being
> available for at least some time for such a job.
> Thus anyone could see at once whether something is really going on about
> translating into this language and whom to ask which kind of tasks would
> be needed for this translation.
> There might surely not be a coordinator for each language yet - but even
> to know about having one or not might help.
> (I just refer to Astrid Kesslers recent mail about her German translation
> activities - should I now refer to her as being the German translation
> coordinator, or still contact you in case of any translation efforts?)

Mail about translation efforts should still to the documentation mailing
list, regardless of who else it gets sent to, so that the docs team know
what is going on.

While I definately like the idea that you have here, almost none of the
listed languages have anyone in the position suggested, at least that I
am aware of. It seems that we have folks that do a doc here or there,
and then thats it. True, there are some languges in which a particular
individual has done a huge amount of work. That work was still all
coordinated through the mailing list.

> Another information I would like to see inside this list would then be the
> number of documents already available in translated form.
> This need not be an accurate number, and you won't need to have to recal-
> culate it exactly for each version of this mail (but this might even be
> done easily by some script traversing through the "docs" tree);

This mailing is not an automatically-generated document. It's just one
of the files in the documentation CVS repository, updated by hand when
people want to make changes to it. It is probably not updated nearly
often enough, but then progress on the documentation moves in fits and
starts as people have blocks of time.

> if you had
> some "translation coordinator" for some language he/she might be the one
> to do this task for you now and then and inform you to update the list
> whenever anything significant has happened.
> This would at least show whether it is really just the "Hello" page or
> whether there is a large number of pages available in translated form.

Is this something that you would be willing to do as a start - count,
for each language, what we have?

> One more informations that could possibly be of value inside such a list
> (which might then rather become a table than a list ...) would be the date
> of the last update of each language line (i. e. the date your "translation
> coordinator" or yourself updated the content of this line for the last
> time) - this might help identifying languages where nothing has happened
> for a long time.

Well, I suppose this information could be immediately obtained from CVS.
There's a cool little utility called cvs2cl that converts cvs log
messages to a change log, which can be tinkered with to only see certain
files. Or, I'm sure there are other ways to tackle this. But, yes, in
the final analysis, this would be a manual process.

> And then about the format: Are translations still of value if they arrive
> in HTML form, or must/should they already be in XML form?

In the 1.3 docs, everything is still in HTML, and will probably be so
indefinately, unless someone obtains a huge amount of free time that
they don't know what to do with. (In which case they should spend it on
2.0 docs!) 2.0 docs are in transition, and so this question is hard to
answer. I would recommend someone translating 2.0 docs watch the
progress of the conversion, and the discussion about how it is being
handled, very carefully, and concentrate primarily on the text, not the

> And is this information unique for each language, or could there be diffe-
> rent stages of migration (that could be worth mentioning in another column
> of the table)?
> By the way, the more columns the above "table" would get, the more likely
> it might be a reasonable way to keep it in HTML somewhere on the server
> and only mail its URL, instead of pasting the formatted content into the
> mailing list.

I, for one, very much like having it sent as text to the mailing list,
because of the conversation that it generates (like this note) and
because I force myself to read it each time. If a URL was sent, I would
not look at it, and would seldom know that there had been a change. Or,
more likely, I would never think to make my own changes to it.

> Another aspect might be that 3rd party modules tend to have version numbers
> of their own, which might be worth mentioning already in the texts of links
> leading from the index page to those documents.
> If so, then the script mentioned by you might want to rely upon some inter-
> face where to find these informations. I would suggest using some
> explicitly
> specified <META> tags inside the docs which could easily be extracted by
> the script.

Joshua, might it be useful to have a tag in the XML docs which specifies
the latest version of the module? I can't think of any time I have ever
needed this information, except for mod_perl and mod_php, but perhaps it
would be useful somewhere?

Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me.
Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message