> > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:39 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: DOCS: problems with using entities > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 01:47:25AM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote: > >> Looking at the Publican docs, symlinking a Doc_name.ent to > >> cloudstack.ent (or something like that) seems like the only sensible > option open to us. > >> The Publican docs have a long rant about how what we are doing is > >> evil, but I don't see any alternative. > > > > So, I see the point given against using entities for something like a > > product / project name, but... it seems to me that if we have a > > situation where "Apache CloudStack" or "CloudStack" could be > > translated to a language that has several forms, the clued-in > > translator could be given leeway to change &PRODUCT; to whatever the > > proper form of CloudStack would be. > > > > > I don't. Jeff and I disagree on this particular point along with several > other things in the use of Publican. CloudStack and Apache CloudStack are > trademarks, we don't want them translated IMO. > > --David >
The reason to use an entity for the product name is to make it easy to rebrand the documentation. As I understand it, one goal in Apache is to let people grab the code and go use it to create something else (correct me if I'm wrong on that). In general, I'm in favor of constructing the documentation so that it's easy to reuse and customize. I also agree with David that the term CloudStack shouldn't be translated. It's not translated in the Japanese docs that we already have. Jessica T. CloudStack Tech Pubs
