httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Antwort: Re: please review translated stopping
Date Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:40:37 GMT

Hallo Kess,

> But please, if you review a translation, note:
> It's only a translation, not a docs rewrite. If we want to enhance
> the documentation, we have to do it within the English original.

to my experience a translation is a very good test for the
original text. If I translate one of my own texts to English
I nearly always change parts of the German version because
when looking for the English equivalent I get aware of the
fact that my German version was sloppy and didn't exactly
say what it should.

I do not intend to use a review of a German version to collect
change requests for the English version. Perhaps I should ...
but very likely you can decide about this better, as you have
worked through the English version while translating.
All I am doing is tell you what I feel about your translation
and whether it looks like the English version could support
your translation effort better if using a different way of
putting information into words (and XML tags).

> So if you suggest enhancements, I would be glad, if you could
> seperate them a little bit from translation smoothing.

The problem is that in a couple of situations both go hand
in hand. If the English version is such that you have problems
translating it then there might a) be a way to work around it,
and b) another way to eliminate the problem.
I prefer the latter but don't feel competent to suggest
changing the original version 'only' for a translation's sake
- therefore I offer both versions and let you decide.

> I'm not very pleased with "fließend". It's only the best, I could find.
> And I don't like "vorsichtig" very much, because it sounds to much
> like "äh, ich taste mich mal da ran, wie weit ich mit dem Neustart
> komme" which gives the wrong impression.

Agreed - "vorsichtig" doesn't fix the problem, although it
seems to describe what Apache is actually trying to do ...
but may easily be mistaken as well.

>> Is there any alternative to having a ScoreBoardFile on the (hard) disk?
>> (Like holding it in RAM or whatever.)
> Yes, a scoreboard file is only neccessary, if your architecture
> is not able to manage it using RAM. E.g. Linux and Windows 2000
> do not need it.

Your sentence sounded as if "ScoreBoardFile" didn't automatically
imply "on disk", so that you had to say that because the file
could reside somewhere else but still be called "ScoreBoardFile".

>> Never use different notions when you mean the same thing.
> The original docs often uses the directive names fluently within
> the text. So we have to decide for each case to translate and
> change the sentence and link or to use the directive name.

I showed you the way I would do this: Translate the notion within
the sentence (if an appropriate translation can be found), and
if a link is required, then additionally mention the English
original notion in round brackets and place the link on this one.

> Well, after all, the last section seems heavily outdated as asked
> at my initial post. But I'm not sure about and want some developers
> to explain these issues. Furthermore, the whole document shoud be
> clarified much more.

This is very much the result that I wanted you to come up with:
Double-check whether the original version is in a state that
a translation can be done without problems.
This might be a nice opportunity to let the original version be
updated as well - as stated above, translators often read these
documents much more carefully than users, as they are aware that
every word counts.

Viele Grüße


View raw message