On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:33:43PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote: > * I don't believe we should favor XML(-ish stuff) above simplified > markup when the target audience are humans. XML is good for many things > but definitely not for being edited by the casual user. BTW there are > wiki engines which support both: simplified wiki syntax and raw HTML. > Please think of the translators: If I see an English page with an > outdated, wrong or nonresistant German translation it would be a matter > of minutes correcting this in a wiki. But in the current system the all > the technical obstacles crush on me so I forget it and just move on > without translating anything.
The past history of the website and translators who work on it actually contradicts your claim. Even if the barrier of entry is higher, once people get through it, they are much more "commited" than the casual wiki user and the website has been translated to a large number of languages which keep content up-to-date without any (known?) issues. Most translators I've worked with (and I coordinate one language team) are quite comfortable with WML and working with a VCS system. Some might need some help getting started but, once they are through, they handle things perfectly fine. They can actually edit/translate offline, something a wiki does not allow you to (AFAIK). Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
