Re: docbook export from Mediawiki (was: Re: Using gnome-doc-utils for help files)
Quoting Pierre-Antoine [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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]. 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. 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. I think wiki editing and exporting to docbook would be a very good solution, because for collaborative document editing the wiki is just fine, whereas docbook as export format would give you the opportunity to create any further formats that might be needed. However, every now and then as I was looking into the export function of mediawiki (Mediawiki-to-docbook export) it turns out there still isn't an easy and error-free solution to do this. For example, there is http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/wiki2xml/w2x.php but on Docbook export (and OpenOffice.org export) the quoted code fragments (Lines starting with whitespace, or tt markup) sometimes silently disappear, which is not tolerable for actual documentation editing. If anyone can point us to an actually *working* implementation of Mediawiki-export-to-docbook, we'd be happy to provide the necessary Mediawiki infrastructure and set up the conversion from our wiki to the gnucash-docs package. But so far I can't see a solution that really works. For the record, here are further (partially dead) projects about exporting: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Wiki2LaTeX http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Open_Office_Export http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Pdf_Export And the above mentioned, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/wiki2xml/w2x.php with its SVN repo http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk/wiki2xml/ Regards, Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Using gnome-doc-utils for help files
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. 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. For a bit more color, you and I discussed this on IRC [1], though the other day you came back and seemed to indicate that it didn't work out so well [2]. So, is that a compelling reason to not move over? In any case, can you please post a patch against the gnucash-docs sources that implements gnome-doc-utils? [1] http://lists.gnucash.org/logs/2007-07-02.html#T16:29:51 [2] http://lists.gnucash.org/logs/2007-07-03.html#T14:35:27 -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp2lJbrInCEu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Using gnome-doc-utils for help files
Hi, 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. 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. [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeDocUtils -- Pierre-Antoine ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Using gnome-doc-utils for help files
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 [1] http://lists.gnucash.org/logs/2007-07-02.html#T16:29:51 [2] http://lists.gnucash.org/logs/2007-07-03.html#T14:35:27 ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Using gnome-doc-utils for help files
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
Re: Using gnome-doc-utils for help files
As a GNOME translator, I can say translating documentation with PO files is _much_ better than editing XML files. I agree PO files are much more handy when translating user interface, but editing XML files isn't any better. The translation tools (or vim/emacs/etc. po-mode) allow us to focus on the actual text, not on the document structure. I never ran into a GNOME document which paragraphs I needed to merge of split. Sometimes I think I would have structured the text differently, but that's not locale-specific. I never translated GnuCash documentation, but from what I read I believe I wouldn't have any problem using gnome-doc-utils with it. One advantage of gettext translation is that, if I translate the hole document and a documenter changes a paragraph, the rest of the document is still translated and only that paragraph will be shown in English. The lack of this features makes translators avoid translating man pages, for instance. I agree sometimes it's hard to spot where the message was changed, specially if it's a long paragraph. There ways to circunvent this, however: 1. You may run wdiff (http://www.gnu.org/software/wdiff/) between previous and current original message, and add the output to the comments. 2. You could adopt gettext 0.16 and use the --previous function in msgmerge I never saw a project using any of these, and I don't know if they are easy to implement. Between gnome-doc-utils without the tricks above and plain XML editing, I prefer the former. Maybe that's all because I'm used to gnome-doc-utils, but honestly I'll try to use xml2po (from gnome-doc-utils) even if I'll have to build XML latter to commit it. Leonardo Fontenelle http://leonardof.org/2007/07/01/gnome-user-guide-completely-translated-to-brazilian-portuguese/en/ 2007/7/5, Pierre-Antoine [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
