Hi Kevin, On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 18:17 -0500, Kevin Godby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Phil Bull <philb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry to change tack slightly, but I'm wondering whether the format > > discussion should be deferred until some more important issues are > > resolved. If we choose an XML format, we can always transform to other > > formats with a bit of work. > > That's true to a degree. But if one format has more granular tags > than another, it's hard to convert from the more general format to the > more granular format. (It's easy to swap one tag for another or to > remove unnecessary tags, but it's hard to add them.)
That's certainly true in theory, but I don't believe that it's a serious problem for us in practise. In my experience, few tags are actually required to give good semantic coverage. Additions to the frequently-used "core" set of tags tend to cover rare edge cases, where existing tags could be slightly abused with no ill effect. Often, the extra tags are displayed in the same way as an existing tag anyway. I don't think that there's a significant risk of choosing something that's semantically too poor. We could even use HTML with different classes for spans and divs if we wanted to! > (Did I stray wildly off-topic and completely forget to answer your question?) Eek, yes, although your discussion of translations was definitely valuable. I still think the editing issue needs to be addressed with some urgency, though. I'm worried that, after editing has finished, few messages will have been left intact, and the translators will have to redo pretty much everything. Thanks, Phil -- Phil Bull https://launchpad.net/~philbull Book - http://nostarch.com/ubuntu4.htm _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual Post to : ubuntu-manual@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
