Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny: new package "debian-faq" (was: Re: doc-debian [...] ready for upload? [...]) - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny: new package "debian-faq" (was: Re: doc-debian [...] ready for upload? [...]) - Debian ; On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +0000, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 03:40:17PM +0100, Joost van Baal wrote: > > I believe the translations which have seen some work recently should get > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny: new package "debian-faq" (was: Re: doc-debian [...] ready for upload? [...])

  1. Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny: new package "debian-faq" (was: Re: doc-debian [...] ready for upload? [...])

    On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +0000, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
    > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 03:40:17PM +0100, Joost van Baal wrote:
    > > I believe the translations which have seen some work recently should get
    > > installed by the debian-faq package; I'll fix that. A call for
    > > translation updates would be useful too, btw.

    >
    > I would volunteer for two things or could maybe give some hints
    > if you like to do this:
    >
    > 1. How about changing the translation to a translation tool on
    > the way? I suggest po4a, but others could be used as well. With
    > such a tool you always know which translations are up to date
    > and translators do not have to read diffs.


    It's currently no problem to use such an approach for individual
    translations only. I think I did it for release-notes by just
    providing an additional Makefile.

    So it's not a big task but should not be done for all languages
    without permission from the translation teams.

    > 2. How about changing from debiandoc to DocBook XML (which has
    > special "qanda" elements for FAQs, tables and other nice stuff)?


    This would fuzzy translations. Also note that DocBook XML doesn't
    support all languages (at least not for all formats such as PDF).
    If you have solutions for both go on ...

    Jens


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...

    On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:18:50PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
    > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +0000, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
    > > 1. How about changing the translation to a translation tool on
    > > the way? I suggest po4a, but others could be used as well. With
    > > such a tool you always know which translations are up to date
    > > and translators do not have to read diffs.

    >
    > It's currently no problem to use such an approach for individual
    > translations only. I think I did it for release-notes by just
    > providing an additional Makefile.


    Yes, one can do it case-by-case.

    > So it's not a big task but should not be done for all languages
    > without permission from the translation teams.


    Of course. However, most translators welcome po enthusiastically,
    as it eases their maintainance work a lot.

    > > 2. How about changing from debiandoc to DocBook XML (which has
    > > special "qanda" elements for FAQs, tables and other nice stuff)?

    >
    > This would fuzzy translations.


    I would first change SGML to XML than introduce po4a.

    > Also note that DocBook XML doesn't
    > support all languages (at least not for all formats such as PDF).


    Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
    debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?

    With having at least two toolchains to create PDF from DocBook XML
    (dblatex and fop/xmlroff), I thought DocBook is not too bad, but
    maybe I'm undervaluing our own good old format here :~)

    > If you have solutions for both go on ...


    OK, we'll see.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...

    On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:23:58AM +0000, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
    > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:18:50PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
    > Of course. However, most translators welcome po enthusiastically,
    > as it eases their maintainance work a lot.
    >
    > > > 2. How about changing from debiandoc to DocBook XML (which has
    > > > special "qanda" elements for FAQs, tables and other nice stuff)?

    > >
    > > This would fuzzy translations.

    >
    > I would first change SGML to XML than introduce po4a.


    Switching to XML and po4a would probably a lot easier if translations
    are mostly up-to-date. Lets see how many teams update their files ...
    > > Also note that DocBook XML doesn't
    > > support all languages (at least not for all formats such as PDF).

    >
    > Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
    > debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?


    Problematic would probably Chinese (zh_CN) (it seems there exists no
    Japanese translation of the FAQ yet?) Maybe it works with newer versions
    but the last time I heard about it fop failed for PDF creation of Asian
    languages. You should be able to test this on a "Hello World" example.

    debiandoc supports more or less all languages we have translations in
    DDP for. Exceptions are greek and I think also Vietnamese (at least for
    PDF, PS).

    > With having at least two toolchains to create PDF from DocBook XML
    > (dblatex and fop/xmlroff), I thought DocBook is not too bad, but
    > maybe I'm undervaluing our own good old format here :~)


    The repository-howto document (which uses XML as well) was also once
    affected by build problems and the output contained garbage. IIRC I
    found a partial workaround in the past. See the log for details.

    I think there are also many languages which are supported by LaTeX but
    not plain TeX which is used by at least one of the toolchains.

    I suggest before converting to check the build status of current DDP
    documents even if the content is outdated. So we could get an impression
    of the tools.

    Jens


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...

    Hi,

    On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
    > > Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
    > > debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?

    >
    > Problematic would probably Chinese (zh_CN) (it seems there exists no
    > Japanese translation of the FAQ yet?) Maybe it works with newer versions
    > but the last time I heard about it fop failed for PDF creation of Asian
    > languages. You should be able to test this on a "Hello World" example.
    >
    > debiandoc supports more or less all languages we have translations in
    > DDP for. Exceptions are greek and I think also Vietnamese (at least for
    > PDF, PS).


    debiandoci-sgml supports:

    ca_ES.ISO8859-1
    ca_ES.ISO8859-15
    ca_ES.UTF-8
    cs_CZ.ISO8859-2
    cs_CZ.UTF-8
    da_DK.ISO8859-1
    da_DK.UTF-8
    de_DE.ISO8859-1
    de_DE.ISO8859-15
    de_DE.UTF-8
    en_US.ISO8859-1
    en_US.ISO8859-15
    en_US.UTF-8
    es_ES.ISO8859-1
    es_ES.ISO8859-15
    es_ES.UTF-8
    eu_ES.ISO8859-1
    eu_ES.ISO8859-15
    eu_ES.UTF-8
    eu_FR.ISO8859-1
    eu_FR.ISO8859-15
    eu_FR.UTF-8
    fi_FI.ISO8859-1
    fi_FI.ISO8859-15
    fi_FI.UTF-8
    fr_FR.ISO8859-1
    fr_FR.ISO8859-15
    fr_FR.UTF-8
    gl_ES.ISO8859-1
    gl_ES.ISO8859-15
    gl_ES.UTF-8
    hr_HR.ISO8859-2
    hr_HR.UTF-8
    it_IT.ISO8859-1
    it_IT.ISO8859-15
    it_IT.UTF-8
    ja_JP.eucJP
    ja_JP.UTF-8
    ko_KR.eucKR
    ko_KR.UTF-8
    lt_LT.ISO8859-13
    lt_LT.UTF-8
    nl_NL.ISO8859-1
    nl_NL.ISO8859-15
    nl_NL.UTF-8
    pl_PL.ISO8859-2
    pl_PL.UTF-8
    pt_BR.ISO8859-1
    pt_BR.UTF-8
    pt_PT.ISO8859-1
    pt_PT.ISO8859-15
    pt_PT.UTF-8
    ro_RO.ISO8859-2
    ro_RO.UTF-8
    ru_RU.KOI8-R
    ru_RU.UTF-8
    sk_SK.ISO8859-2
    sk_SK.UTF-8
    sl_SI.ISO8859-2
    sl_SI.UTF-8
    sv_SE.ISO8859-1
    sv_SE.UTF-8
    tr_TR.ISO8859-9
    tr_TR.UTF-8
    uk_UA.UTF-8
    vi_VN.UTF-8
    zh_CN.GB2312
    zh_CN.UTF-8
    zh_TW.Big5
    zh_TW.UTF-8

    But PS/PDF may break for Korean/Japanese/... many UTF-8. I do not know
    how to fix LaTeX customization.

    > > With having at least two toolchains to create PDF from DocBook XML
    > > (dblatex and fop/xmlroff), I thought DocBook is not too bad, but
    > > maybe I'm undervaluing our own good old format here :~)


    I hope so too.

    > The repository-howto document (which uses XML as well) was also once
    > affected by build problems and the output contained garbage. IIRC I
    > found a partial workaround in the past. See the log for details.


    I will look it to find how to build XML for new debian-reference.

    > I think there are also many languages which are supported by LaTeX but
    > not plain TeX which is used by at least one of the toolchains.


    I do not understand here. I thought LaTeX uses plain TeX as backend. It
    is just macro package. Am I missing something...

    > I suggest before converting to check the build status of current DDP
    > documents even if the content is outdated. So we could get an impression
    > of the tools.


    Format conversion is too timeconsuming and little gain unless content
    updates are done at the same time. Basically, when updating contents,
    let's covert things to XML/po4a.

    Osamu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...

    On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:33PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
    > > > Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
    > > > debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?

    >
    > But PS/PDF may break for Korean/Japanese/... many UTF-8. I do not know
    > how to fix LaTeX customization.


    As far as I know it should work. There was indeed short time ago a
    problem for one of the DDP documents and I was able to reduce it to
    an incompatibility of two LaTeX macros. The bug is still pending
    (#469305) and affects dselect-beginner.

    Are there other well known failures?

    > > The repository-howto document (which uses XML as well) was also once
    > > affected by build problems and the output contained garbage. IIRC I
    > > found a partial workaround in the past. See the log for details.

    >
    > I will look it to find how to build XML for new debian-reference.


    Please compare also with other DDP projects to use the best as template.
    Some build chains are a real nightmare :-)

    > > I think there are also many languages which are supported by LaTeX but
    > > not plain TeX which is used by at least one of the toolchains.

    >
    > I do not understand here. I thought LaTeX uses plain TeX as backend. It
    > is just macro package. Am I missing something...


    Right. So you can (theoretically) use any TeX macro in a TeX and LaTeX
    document. A LaTeX macro (and I think many language support tools are
    written for LaTeX) will not work with plain TeX.

    It's really a while ago that I did something in this domain and my LaTeX
    skills are now partely more than 10 years old. Things change ...

    I at least remember that Frans Pop failed to create PDF files for the
    installer manual at least for some languages. Indeed, the PDF list
    on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual is much shorter
    as the HTML list. I once looked into "fop" but I didn't understand it,
    it was too complicated.

    > > I suggest before converting to check the build status of current DDP
    > > documents even if the content is outdated. So we could get an impression
    > > of the tools.

    >
    > Format conversion is too timeconsuming and little gain unless content
    > updates are done at the same time. Basically, when updating contents,
    > let's covert things to XML/po4a.


    po4a is unrelated and can be done independent of it. But if you update
    contents you do in general not update the whole file! So it may be
    indeed an option to change the format independly (just to be sure that
    all fuzzy PO file strings are related to SGML/XML tags only and not also
    to content, such a review would be very hard).

    On the other side: If the SGML -> XML transition can be done
    automatically via script no translation would be outdated as the process
    can be done for translations as well. This would be optimal.

    Jens


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread