On Sun, Oct 26 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
>> the Debian website contained two nearly identical copies of the Debian
>> Social contract. That's why http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.1> got
>> removed and the current version can be found in
>> http://www.debian.org/social_contract.
> Why wasn't this done in a way that would have kept existing translations
> of version 1.1 valid?
> I.e:
> - first copy 1.1 unchanged for _all_ languages to new location and update
> translation comments (or keep old English version for new document)
The 1.1 and the unversioned number had identical content, but
the latter had some improved HTML tagging (</p> elements added, for
one). So copying 1,1 in english to the unversioned number would have
been the wrong thing to do.
> - then make wanted changes in new document
> - finally remove the 1.0 and 1.1 documents
Err, the 1.0 version should not be removed.
> IMO that would have made things much more transparent and a lot less worlk
> for translators.
>
> You are now forcing me to jump through hoops and do extensive checks to
> see that I've not missed anything to resurrect the Dutch translation
> while the actual changes are minor.
There should not have been _any_ actual content changes; if there
are, then some translation was buggy.
manoj
--
The trouble with the average family budget is that at the end of the
money there's too much month left.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
