httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: HERE is a Simplified Chinese Manual Transalation Project going on.
Date Fri, 07 Feb 2003 06:38:03 GMT
At 09:07 PM 2/6/2003, kajaa wrote:
>In the Apache distribute releases, there are many translations including
>Japanese, Korean, and even Traditional Chinese, but no Simplified Chinese,
>which is used by more than 1.3 billion peoples in the world, while
>Traditional Chinese is used in some areas by approximately 10-20 million
>peoples. As a Simplified Chinese user, I think I should do something if
>possible, so the project started.

Undoubtedly goodness.  Obviously this docs@ list is an english dialog,
and where we have momentum of many individuals a seperate mailing list
for those efforts makes much sense.  I'd ask (but don't need to since you
are already here) that any such effort contribute at least one or two english
speakers to follow the and filter the info on (at least
in a digest) to the other-language communities.

Please note that that we would be happy to host such lists (in fact 
we would prefer to be the authoritative resource so there isn't confusion 
between competing projects, but that's another discussion) and want 
to involve individuals in maintaining the documentation as distributed
with Apache releases.

I am interested (as I'm totally ignorant here) about the difference between
traditional and simplified Chinese... are the readers of one able to read
the other?  How disparate are they?

>While the project going on, we do concern about the official Apache Docs
>Project, and noticed that it had upgrated to version 2.1. Although it may
>cause confusion, I decided by fetch some new XML files in version 2.1 from
>Apache CVS server to replace some old *, so, the versions we are
>working on are newer than 2.0, and older than 2.1. Since the Simplified
>Chinese translation is whole new to the Apache Releases, I think it may be
>tolerable. Do you (others) have good sugguestions about this?

To clarify...

Apache 2.0.x is in maintenance.  We won't be making major changes that
make modules incompatible with one another, or causing users to modify
their configuration files between updates (at least that's the hope.)

Apache 2.1 will never exist as a release.  The next release, once all of
the new features (whatever those new features turn out to be) will be
numbered 2.2.0.  The 2.1 documentation is the effort to get us to 2.2.
Betas of 2.1 will probably be released, but these won't be considered GA.

Apache 2.1 docs already have big changes for the mod_auth/authn/authz
schema that makes no sense to Apache 2.0 users.  That's the biggest
discrepancy.  Others changes are really minor so far.

>Erik Abele wrote:
>> For example Mozilla defines the language by an ISO 639 two character
>> code in lower case, plus a ¡°-¡° to connect an ISO 3166 code in upper
>> case: If the font setting make sense to only one language used in a
>> particular region/country: for example: ¡°zh-TW¡± for Chinese used in
>> # ¡°zh-CN¡±: for document encoded in Simplified Chinese encodings
>> # ¡°zh-TW¡±: for document encoded in Traditional Chinese encodings
>How about keep Simplified Chinese docs as *.xml.zh-cn and *,
>and Traditional Chinese as *.xml.zh-tw and *.html.zh.big5? I think it's
>better to make a decision ASAP without more modifications in the future,
>isn't it?

Please review for best practices.

I really found this page very enlightening...
It sites section 4.4 of

I note that your forum, in terms of metadata, Simply defines 
Content-Type: text/html; charset=gb2312.

Rather than by region of dialect, I think we would be happy to simplify
this to * which is denotes simplifed Chinese (correct?)

Your feedback, relative to ISO 639 is most appreciated!  Sorry if we've
flipflopped on this, but since we have no eastern language gurus here,
we are sort of floating on input from the handful of folks who write us
about the 'correct' way.  We are looking for some authoritative references
since we aren't in the standards-writing business (although many of our
members are :-)

Thanks, and great work!


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

View raw message