-1 this would exclude possible interested international folks. We should keep the discussion on a list open to everyone!
On 7/14/03 2:21 AM, "Robert Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To: [email protected] > > On the Jakarta General list, we've been discussing the possibility of > introducing an "Internationalization" project into incubation. It seems the > consensus is that it should be targeted for a top-level > programming-language-independent and spoken-language-independent Apache > project, rather a Jakarta subproject. > > (To anyone on the JG list: I used a blind CC so that this is the only message > on [email protected] which should be CCd to JG. You can set up message > filters on "[i18n]" on both lists to follow the discussions in either > place....) > > A preliminary organization of the project based on the JG discussions is > included in my message below. > > I don't mind "spearheading" the incubation myself. Is there anyone else > interested whom we can add to the list of contributors (see A through F > below)? Is there anything else we should consider before requesting entry > into incubation? > > TIA. > Robert Simpson > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [i18n] Internationalization subproject sponsor? > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:32:36 +0100 > From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[email protected]> > To: "Jakarta General List" <[email protected]> > > On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 01:14 PM, Robert Simpson wrote: > > <snip> > >> I am surprised there isn't more interest in a common internationalization >> framework within Jakarta. But then I have been assuming that there are >> non-English-speaking "members" in Jakarta, not just "committers" and >> other users of the code. > > i think that there several jakarta members who are not native english > speakers. as Tetsuya Kitahata pointed out there are far fewer members than > committers and i'm not sure whether there are any jakarta members who are > native speakers of non-latin languages. it takes a lot of energy to > spearhead an incubation and it's a big commitment for a member to make. > > but i don't think that the member would have to come from jakarta (even if > that's where those people involved with the product hope that it will end > up). i wonder whether you might have more luck finding a sponsor over in > xml-land. since many of their products are multi-language a common i18n > framework may be of more pressing importance than here. i also have an > idea that there are members whose native languages are non-latin. > > i like the idea of an apache wide i18n project along the lines suggested > by Tetsuya Kitahata. > > - robert > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [i18n] Internationalization subproject > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:55:00 -0400 > Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" > <[email protected]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Jakarta General List <[email protected]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > WRT Santiago's point about keeping the different translations in sync, the > solution is to have each word/phrase in (1) or each section in (2) identified > in the XML with a version number. Then it would be a simple matter to have a > program compare the two documents, and indicate where the translation needs to > be updated (the program could even provide an initial translation of the > section via machine translation, to be refined by the human translator). The > XML should also indicate who made each change and whether a change was > prompted by a need to change the document (additions to content, for example) > or as a translation of another version. That way, no particular translation > would have to be the "primary" document, and any conflicts could be identified > and handled. For example, a Spanish-speaking person could add a missing > section to the Spanish translation of a document, and that section could then > be translated back into the original and other translations. This arrangement > could also handle "proposed" additions (the XML equivalent of "I, a Spanish > translator, propose to add a new section here"), which could be commented on > (ex: "that section would be better placed over there") and/or voted on by > translators of other languages, etc.... > > Am I getting the feeling right that the Internationalization project would be > ultimately targeted for a top level, multiple-programming-language Apache > project? If so, I think the best approach would be to get the Java support > done first, to demonstrate its viability and usefulness. But still, from the > start, the intent should be to design with language-independence as the > ultimate goal. > > So, in summary, the organization of the project would be: > > 1. code common to both (1) and (2) > 1.1 code > This would include any code that supports both (2) and (3), such as the code > to do comparisons between translations > 1.1.1 any programming-language-neutral stuff (configuration files, XML, etc) > 1.1.2 Java > 1.1.2.1 source code > 1.1.2.1.1 source code contributors (committers) > 1.1.3+ other programming languages, similarly > > 2. user interface internationalization (words and phrases) > 2.1 code > This would include the code to generate programming-language-specific > resources, and provide access to those resources > 2.1.1 any programming-language-neutral stuff (configuration files, XML, etc) > 2.1.2 Java > 2.1.2.1 source code > 2.1.2.1.1 source code contributors (committers) > 2.1.2.2 resources (translations, generated from XML) > 2.1.3+ other programming languages, similarly > 2.1.3+.1 source code for other programming languages > 2.1.3+.2 resources for other programming languages (translations, generated > from XML) > 2.2 language translations (programming-language-neutral) > 2.2.1 any spoken-language-neutral stuff (all-language distribution files, > JUnit tests for file verification, etc) > 2.2.2 English language translations (initial "source" translations) > 2.2.2.1 XML format > 2.2.2.1.1 English language translators (committers) > 2.2.2.2 English user references > 2.2.2.2.1 XML formatted user reference (generated, XSL-FO?) > 2.2.2.2.2 HTML formatted user reference (generated, possibly with a doclet) > 2.2.2.2.3 PDF formatted user reference (generated, possibly from XML user > reference using Apache XML-FOP) > 2.2.3+ other spoken languages, similarly > > 3. internationalization of complete documents > 3.1 code > This would include code or tools (possibly making use of other Apache code) > to generate specific document file formats > 3.1.1 any programming-language-neutral stuff (configuration files, XML, etc) > 3.1.2 Java > 3.1.2.1 source code > 3.1.2.1.1 source code contributors (committers) > 3.1.3+ other programming languages, similarly > 3.1.3+.1 source code for other programming languages > 3.2 language translations (programming-language-neutral) > 3.2.1 any spoken-language-neutral stuff (all-language distribution files, > JUnit tests for file verification, etc) > 3.2.2 English language translations (initial "source" translations) > 3.2.2.1 XML format (based on XSL-FO?) > 3.2.2.1.1 English language translators (committers) > 3.2.2.2 HTML format (generated) > 3.2.2.3 PDF format (generated, possibly using Apache XML-FOP) > 3.2.2.4+ other document file formats (generated) > 3.2.3+ other spoken languages, similarly > > The main difference between sections (2) and (3) is that (2) is organized > primarily by programming language, with the programming-language-specific > resources as part of the first subsection (2.1) keeping the second section > (2.2) programming-language-neutral, while (3) is organized primarily by spoken > language, with the programming-language-independent file formats as part of > the second subsection (3.2), keeping them separate from the > programming-language-specific stuff in the first subsection (3.1). > > I'd be willing to work on the common code and user interface code, and it > looks like there is a good starting list for the language translators. Is > there anyone willing to drive the second part, the internationalization of > complete documents? > > I can also be update the proposal as indicated above, and then let it be > reviewed/modified here, or in CVS somewhere. In your replies to the mailing > list, please indicate in which of the following ways you might be willing to > contribute: > > A) committer for code for internationalization of user interface and possibly > common code > B) committer for code for internationalization of complete documents and > possibly common code > C) language translation (either or both UI or documents) > D) sponsor entry of Java version of Internationalization subproject into > Jakarta > E) incorporate internationalization into another Apache/Jakarta sub/project > (please specify) > F) none of the above > > Robert Simpson > > Santiago Gala wrote: > >> Robert Simpson escribi�: >>> Santiago Gala, >>> >>> As far a document and resource translation, I'm not sure if you are >>> referring to machine translation, or human translation. My focus has >>> been on human translation, mainly because machine translation is >>> still pretty far from perfect. There could be APIs for interfaces to >>> various machine translation tools, such as Systransoft, but I think >>> that should be a later, secondary priority. Even if there was >>> support for machine translation, I would prefer that it could be >>> augmented by human proofreading and revision. So it's probably just >>> as easy to let the language translator use whatever machine >>> translation tool s/he prefers. >>> >> >> David Taylor has already anwered WRT code. >> >> I was thinking mostly about having a "pool" of people who can translate >> and are more or less "cross project". For instance, I can translate >> English to Spanish, and I'm a committer in Jetspeed, but I could also >> translate, say, parts of the tomcat documents that I'm reading, or some >> XML stuff I'm interested into. Or even docs for Apache modules. >> >> The good part is that it would help the whole community, both WRT >> translation efforts and WRT crosspollination, as these kind of people >> will "see" beyond their small project(s). Also, it oculd bring new kinds >> of developers (Today I heard in the radio, coming home, that 72% od >> people in Spain cannot speak *any* foreign language. We are a bad sample >> but in most of Europe, less than 50% people speaks English.) >> >> The problem is that I can't see clearly how to implement such a >> crosscutting service/project, in ways that would not be difficult to >> impossible to manage. Specially since we should keep source control on >> both the original doc and the translations in sync. >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Regards >> -- >> Santiago Gala >> High Sierra Technology, S.L. (http://hisitech.com) >> http://memojo.com?page=SantiagoGalaBlog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
