Christian Stimming a écrit : > Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Josh Sled: > >> Pierre-Antoine Lacaze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> I'm beginning the French translation of Gnucash's help, and have been >>> suggested that it would be a good move to look into converting >>> gnucash-help to gnome-doc-utils [1]. g-d-u is supposedly the preferred >>> way for documentation handling, and make use of po files. >>> > > Without having looked too much into g-d-u details I'd *strongly* adverse > moving our user documentation to po files! Po files are great for smaller > chunks of translations which can be translated more or less independent from > one another. Our documentation, with the "Guide and Concepts" being the best > part of it all, is clearly not at all translatable in a > paragraph-by-paragraph way, independently of one another. > > Also, one of the largest advantages of po files, which is the easy > visualization of changed strings, becomes moot if these strings are longer > than 1-2 lines. For longer strings, po only says "this whole paragraph has > changed in *some* way", whereas .xml or .sgml or even .txt would give you a > diff showing the exact line that changed. (Diffs are not possible for po.) > > IMHO the arbitrary division of the help documents into separate po strings > doesn't offer any advantage at all. I don't agree with this being "a > preferred way". Well, maybe for a subset of user documentation: This *might* > be suitable to the kind of help you'd expect when pressing F1 somewhere, > which gives you 2-3 sentences about what is currently going on. But this is > not at all suitable for our large Guide document. > > >>> I more or less ported it already, and would like to know if there is a >>> compelling reason not to move over. >>> >>> I fear myself with po files the lack of flexibility required in highly >>> technical, country-specific documentation. >>> > > If you still think this might be interesting, then I'd be interested to see > the .pot file that comes out of the g-d-u conversion (or part of it). I would > clearly recommend against it, though. > > Regards, > > Christian >
I suspected so, and pot files indeed look scary and unusable. Does someone know a good way of handling big doc translation in a collaborative fashion, without resorting to hard to use tools ? I know of a wiki engine capable of editing docbooks, or exporting to docbooks. -- Pierre-Antoine _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
