2008/12/4 Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 07:20, Kalle Sommer Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1) Translation bugs >> Theres many translation bugs reported [1] reported to the bug tracker >> and I don't think that many translators check for bugs in there. So I >> propose we add a link to the docweb site for when you're focusing on a >> specific translation to eg. say: >> >> Project (documentation) bugs >> 53 open bugs >> 4 open translation bugs > > Sounds good. > > When I browse these bugs I tend to prefix the titles with [LANG] to > make it easier for translators to identify bugs in their languages. > > >> Aswell as sending a perhaps monthly email to their mailing list, like >> the bug summary being sent to internals. > > To all ~30 lists? I don't think thats gonna help. > > >> 2) Many of the reported translation bugs as said above are related to >> outdated versions of a file, I think we should put a notice on the >> manual pages if a page is outdated so people don't miss information or >> features that may be useful to them aswel as a link to the english >> version of the page. > > There is already a feature request for that behaviour, but due to our > entity include magic PhD has no chance of figuring out which page is > what, and therefore no chance of comparing file revisions. > > Using a revision attribute (like proposed last year, and again > recently) on the root elements of all chunks would however possibly > make it possible. > PhD could read the revision attribute of all chunks and register the > revision to the xml:id, then when building translations it could > compare those revisions and mark the xml:id/chunk as outdated (i.e. > pregenerate "this page is outdated" into the header or something).
How much would be needed for this? I know that revcheck probably will break aswell as all translations. But from your point of view would it be reasonable to make that change? > > -Hannes > -- Kalle Sommer Nielsen
