Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
Vicente Carrasco -Bixen- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
ca> Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
ca> > I think using <quote> instead of &[lr]aquo; is more reasonable. The
ca> > <quote> element in DocBook is just for in-line text with quotation
ca> > marks, not implying either citation or other semantics. So, if you
ca> > just want to add quotation marks around a text, not for emphasizing
ca> > it, using <quote> is the right way.
ca> >
ca>
ca>
ca> I'm pretty sure that you're right, the reasonable, and canonical way
ca> of doing that things in DocBook (probably in English and other
ca> languages) is that. I have no doubt about it. But I think that it's a
ca> good idea using [lr]aquo; in *our* texts because:
ca>
ca> - it's easier to type than <quote> and </quote>. One of the reasons of
ca> - our lack of translators in our branch of FDP is that they can't just
ca> - type, and they have to type a lot of tags, acutes and so on.
The quotation mark should be considered separately from alphabet with
accent mark. I agree that translated documents directly use such
characters instead of something like ´, but I cannot agree that
« is easier than <quote>. If we allow the translator to remove
a tag for a reason that she just does not want to type a lot of tags,
we cannot keep the consistency. What do you mean exactly by "easy to
type" and "they cannot type it"?
I said "...they can't just type". Sorry for my broken English, sometimes
is not the best dialectical tool. I mean that our translators would
prefer just type in plain Spanish, for example using tildes and not
acutes. Anyway that's not a problem, we have not so much volunteers
right now and something like that wouldn't be very helpful at the
moment. There is nobody to say "Hurray, the acutes are gone!".
While for alphabet I can understand
because the translator needs to type a lot of entities if we enforce
to use stuff like ´ instead of raw character, I think there is
no difference between the two (« vs <quote>) in terms of ease.
We must decide which should be used based on its reasonability
anyway. Would you elaborate the reason more specifically?
I can try it.
My point is: in my language (not in DocBook, in my mother thonge) using
<quote> or « is simply a matter of taste in each moment. I can't
figure why is so important to you. What I can tell you is that is not so
important for me.
ca> - The quotes that you got when using [lr]aquo; are called "latin". That
ca> - sounds interesting to me, as a translator to Spanish, for obvious
ca> - reasons ;-)
If you want to use another kind of quotation mark in the localized
document, change stylesheet, not the document itself.
But I find useful the have those two kinds of quotation marks. If I can
use them, why I would use just one?
By the way, I like bikesheds in magenta.
--
===================================================
J. Vicente Carrasco -- Bixen
carvay at [tikismikis.org | FreeBSD.org]
Current Basque Beret: Spanish FDP Translationmeister
------ Primum non nocere -------
===================================================
--
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
