On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 20:13 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote: > Today at 16:37, Matthew East wrote: > > > I recently had some help on this list regarding the use of xml2po. We > > have made a pot template using xml2po -e, expanding the templates, but > > unfortunately this has resulted in the licences and revision history of > > the document appearing in the template, which several translators have > > complained about, given that there are official translations of the > > licences available, and that translating these parts is essentially > > unnecessary. > > Why don't you include license using xinclude as well? > > That will allow you to keep translations for legal.xml separate.
An idea I've been toying around with for a while is boilerplate snippets for stuff like this. These would be provided by, and translated in, gnome-doc-utils. So if your document is covered by version 1.2 of the FDL, you would specify it as a snippet in your Makefile.am: DOC_SNIPPETS = legalnotice-fdl-1-2 You would still need to put the XInclude in your articleinfo: <xi:include href="legalnotice-fdl-1-2.xml"/> But you would not put legalnotice-fdl-1-2.xml into CVS, and it would not be included in the PO files for translators. Rather, translators would translate this once in gnome-doc-utils, and it would be installed into DATADIR/gnome-doc-utils/snippets/. Then at build time, the correct translated version (or the C version if no translated version exists) would be copied into your build directory. Here's the isses we'd need to resolve: 1. Some documents will choose to allow only that version of the license, while others will allow that version or any later version. I propose each legalnotice snippet comes in two forms: legalnotice-fdl-1-2.xml (Version 1.2 of the license) legalnotice-fdl-1-2+.xml (Version 1.2 or any later version) 2. Some documents include the license as an appendix. Technically, this is what the fdl calls for. However, we've gotten around this by shipping the GNU licenses as separate documents. Clearly, it's easy to include appendix versions as well: DOC_SNIPPETS = legalnotice-fdl-1-1 appendix-fdl-1-1 The problem is that the text of the legalnotice likely needs to be different based on whether or not you're including an appendix. So now we're getting permutations of options for the legalnotice: later version or not, appendix included or not, etc. And that's a pain. Maybe we should just pick one technique and support it exclusively. 3. When documents include non-trivial code examples, it is common and advisable to license those seperately under an appropriate free software license. I suggest (IANAL) that it is acceptable to give a second legalnotice providing a license for the code. That is, I don't believe it's necessary to modify the FDL legalnotice. It is likely sufficient to provide a second legalnotice with text to the effect of: The programming code in this document is licensed seperately under the terms of the GNU LGPL. <boilerplate LGPL legalnotice crap> This, of course, would also have to be included as a snippet. We would not be able to use just legalnotice-lgpl-2-0, as that would just be a legalnotice to place the document under the LGPL. We would have to provide snippets to the effect of: legalnotice-code-lgpl-2-0 legalnotice-code-lgpl-2-0+ legalnotice-code-gpl-2-0 legalnotice-code-gpl-2-0+ legalnotice-code-bsd legalnotice-code-etc... We would also want to provide appendices for each of these. 4. Translations of the GNU licenses, and probably other licenses as well, are considered unofficial. There are some translations listed on GNU's web site: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html#FDL Most of these (and it should be all, from my understanding) have two paragraphs at the top. The first is an English paragraph stating that the translation is unofficial and that the English license is definitive, and the second is the translation of that paragraph. We would really want our translated appendices to contain those disclaimer paragraphs. However, those paragraphs aren't translations of anything in the C document, so I don't know how we would make that work with xml2po. 5. We would have to translate these document snippets using xml2po, probably in a separate translation domain from the one we use for stylesheet translations. I would consider these translations to be core gnome-doc-utils translations, and not documentation translations. Thus, I would want them included in the regular translation status pages, rather than the documentation translations status pages that Danilo has put together. But the regular status pages are generated with intltool, which wouldn't be able to grok the xml2po stuff. So that's what I'd like to do, and the problems I've run into in trying to make it happen. Maybe the wider community of documentation tools hackers and translations can help me to resolve these issues. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
