subject:"Re\: Do not touch l10n files"

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:35AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
  On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:02:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''. 
  
  Hey, this was the subject, I had to get it short.  My original post
  contained the following paragraph:
So I would like to ask developers not to edit l10n files (templates,
PO files, etc) themselves; if you believe that something goes wrong,
notify the translator or his translation team (or any other trusted
person).  If you disagree, think twice before applying your changes,  
you are certainly wrong.
 
 Oh, rubbish. I won't claim to be able to deal with l10n files in every
 language under the sun, but I'm familiar enough with several European
 languages to be able to correct minor errors, make cautious small
 updates when something has changed globally, and so on.

And you could also have mentioned that you pointed out an error I made
when merging two translations.  Of course I am grateful to developers
who take care of l10n, but from my experience I was corrected once and
my files were corrupted many times.

Again my complaint goes against people who do not fully understand
foreign languages and believe that they know what they should look
like, see e.g.
  
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00161.html

 As long as I'm careful, I believe that this improves the state of
 l10n. Sure, I'll usually remember to tell the translator about it too,
 but I have many things to do, and translations are often the last
 thing I do before making a release in order to make sure that they're
 as up to date as possible so I'm often in a hurry.

 Perhaps this is just a translation problem itself, but you are
 certainly wrong has an incredibly arrogant tone.

As said above this assumption is based on my own statistics, others
may differ.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:17:50PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[...]
  As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything
   shipped in my package, since it is my signature that goes with it,
   and I am responsible for all bugs. 
 
 You do hold upstream responsible for the bugs in their software right? From
 my point of view, same should go for translators. Translation-related bugs
 should be the responsibility of the translation teams (and should be
 forwarded to them). Some other projects (like GNOME [1] or KDE [2])
 understand this and the translation (l10n work) translators get access to
 the source code CVS and whatever they do gets merged with the programs if
 it works (syntactically correct, compiles, etc..)

This is fully right.  Some Debian projects work this way (I know debian-www,
debian-installer and debian-doc, are there others?) and it eases everyone's
life.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-15 Thread Thom May

Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this as much as possible, since I think
Denis' original post:
So I would like to ask developers not to edit l10n files (templates,
PO files, etc) themselves; if you believe that something goes wrong,
notify the translator or his translation team (or any other trusted
person).  If you disagree, think twice before applying your changes,  
you are certainly wrong.

is exactly what we did. 
I'm sorry that an aparently simple request has descended into mud-slinging
and general hostility, but it certainly wasn't our intention.
I'm also quite upset to see off hand insults - I've never claimed to know
what a foreign language should look like, what we've asked is for a
rational explanation as to why when we removed a single character, (a 3 as
it happens) the layout of the french translation changed dramatically and to
a form that the maintainers do not view as ideal.
I hesitate to comment on the ownership of the translation, but would like
to point out that the package maintainer is the one whose name is on the
package; thus I think in the final analysis it's the maintainers call. If
the maintainer has concerns about the translation, then the *least* the
translation team could do is respond in a civil manner with the reasons
behind the decision and work *with* the maintainer to resolve the problem. 
Cheers
-Thom

(sorry if the threading is broken - i'm replying based on the web archive.
Please cc me on responses, too)

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:04:14PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
 Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this as much as possible, since I think
 Denis' original post:
 So I would like to ask developers not to edit l10n files (templates,
 PO files, etc) themselves; if you believe that something goes wrong,
 notify the translator or his translation team (or any other trusted
 person).  If you disagree, think twice before applying your changes,  
 you are certainly wrong.
 
 is exactly what we did. 
 I'm sorry that an aparently simple request has descended into mud-slinging
 and general hostility, but it certainly wasn't our intention.
 I'm also quite upset to see off hand insults - I've never claimed to know
 what a foreign language should look like, what we've asked is for a
 rational explanation as to why when we removed a single character, (a 3 as
 it happens) the layout of the french translation changed dramatically and to
 a form that the maintainers do not view as ideal.

It has already been told more than once: in French, an itemized list is
preferred over a comma separated list when it gives a very long sentence.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-15 Thread Thom May

* Denis Barbier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
 On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:04:14PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
  I'm also quite upset to see off hand insults - I've never claimed to know
  what a foreign language should look like, what we've asked is for a
  rational explanation as to why when we removed a single character, (a 3 as
  it happens) the layout of the french translation changed dramatically and to
  a form that the maintainers do not view as ideal.
 
 It has already been told more than once: in French, an itemized list is
 preferred over a comma separated list when it gives a very long sentence.
 
Now, preferred, in English, means more desirable than another not we must
use this at all costs. So, again. We have said we don't like the layout and
would *prefer* that the translators change it. 
-Thom

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-15 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:32:55AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:

 The situation is very different from the situation maintainer face with 
 upstream code because in fact apt should be able to install l10n packages 
 related to a given program package when it installs the program package. 

 So if l10n materials are currently integrated into program packages, instead 
 of being in separate l10n packages, it's because of this lack in apt. It's 
 not because the program package maintainer should also be responsible for 
 l10n stuff related to the program, like he is responsible for the code in the 
 program.

I'm sure the apt maintainers will be happy to know you think the
inclusion of debconf template translations in packages indicates a
deficiency in their code.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpBkZdv65Y5I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:25:56PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
 * Denis Barbier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
  On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:04:14PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
   I'm also quite upset to see off hand insults - I've never claimed to know
   what a foreign language should look like, what we've asked is for a
   rational explanation as to why when we removed a single character, (a 3 
   as
   it happens) the layout of the french translation changed dramatically and 
   to
   a form that the maintainers do not view as ideal.
  
  It has already been told more than once: in French, an itemized list is
  preferred over a comma separated list when it gives a very long sentence.

 Now, preferred, in English, means more desirable than another not we must
 use this at all costs. So, again. We have said we don't like the layout and
 would *prefer* that the translators change it. 

Following your definition of prefer, you ask us to change it, but will
accomodate otherwise.  This is fine with me, let's see what the translator
will decide.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-15 Thread Branden Robinson

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:40:57PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
 On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:25:56PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
  * Denis Barbier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
   It has already been told more than once: in French, an itemized list is
   preferred over a comma separated list when it gives a very long sentence.
 
  Now, preferred, in English, means more desirable than another not we must
  use this at all costs. So, again. We have said we don't like the layout and
  would *prefer* that the translators change it. 
 
 Following your definition of prefer, you ask us to change it, but will
 accomodate otherwise.  This is fine with me, let's see what the translator
 will decide.

It's the package maintainer's preference that controls, unless he is
overruled.  The procedures for overruling a maintainer's decision are
described in the Constitution.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpoBnjzV1LWR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-15 Thread Gustavo Noronha Silva

Em Tue, 13 May 2003 06:57:45 +0200 (CEST), Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:

  Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
  and we are bound to it.
 
 Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
 a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
 message above.

This is the same as telling me I should translate 'yellow submarine' to
'amarelo submarino', when the right thing in pt_BR is 'submarino amarelo'.

Why do you bother with the layout of the translation? The translators are
the authorities when it comes to their languages. I think we should not
be put in a jail and be unable to decide how we think our users should
see the message.

Let's make it clear: we translate stuff to make it more readable to
our fellow compatriots, making the translation look bad to our users
does not help achieving the goal.

[]s!

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov
Debian: http://www.debian.org  *  http://www.debian-br.org
Dúvidas sobre o Debian? Visite o Rau-Tu: http://rautu.cipsga.org.br

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:36:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
 On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
  On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:56:08PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
   Do we have such standard document for the original english description ?
   No, and there is no dedicated team to review them.
  
  debian-l10n-english
 
 There have been no email send to this list from November 2002 to
 February 2003. Can we call that a team ?  

This list is stalled when no input is sent, but this is certainly not
the fault of those who are kindly reviewing English prose.

[...]
   Telling them 'you do not speak french, so don't try to understand' is
   not acceptable.
  
  Sure it is.  If they believe that the translator is wrong, they can
  ask a trusted person of their own to review the translation.
 
 I have done that several time myself. The result was several time that
 the ddtp translation were sheer nonsense. I am sorry. So I have used
 my veto right to uploaded meaningful translation.  Trust is not given
 for free, one need to deserve it.

I guess that you did it for French translations.  Do you imagine
sending such a message to a Japanese translator:
  My description has a comma separated list but your translation
  does not contain any comma.  Moreover there is no space between
  words which makes your text look ugly.  For these reasons I will
  apply my veto right.
?

Here is what I am talking about: some developers alter translations
for languages they do not understand, which is silly.  If you are not
fluent in a given language, do not try to fix translations, it is
likely that you will make them worse.

[...]
 For example removing trailing dot of the short description from the
 french translation is wrong if the english version has it. The dot must
 first be removed from the english version and then from the translation.
 So notify the maintainer and wait until he upload a fixed version.

Right, but this is not what is discussed here.  English description is not
wrong, so the translator had no reason to send a bugreport.

[...]
 As far as my experience is concerned, people allows themselves to
 translate description of packages they do not understand in english
 instead of giving up  and produce nonsense as translation. This is
 that I would like the reviewers to focus on, not on typographical details.

I agree this is a problem, but I do not know how to prevent these people
from translating.  Telling reviewers to relax grammar rules does not help.
OTOH some French maintainers are unable to write plain French but
translate their material, this is also a problem.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Paul Hampson

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:56:08PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
 Bonjour,
 
 I am french and I don't regard the 'Imprimerie Nationale' rules as binding.
 We are still a free country.
 
 Do we have such standard document for the original english description ?
 No, and there is no dedicated team to review them.

This is not for lack of trying... People keep trying to tie
down the English language with an institution similar to
the one French has (the name of which I can't remember) but
it never sticks. Certain endeavours have English-language
manuals (Journalism, government writing come to mind) but,
as I understand it, there's no authority on English beyond
the Oxford, Webster's and Macquarie (and others I don't know)
Dictionaries for UK, US and Australian English.

On the other hand, what we want in Debian (I presume) is
standard {langauge} which is usually fairly easy to agree
upon. It's the most formal subset spoken by the most people,
I suspect. So in French I understand it's the form dictated
by the language institute in Paris who's name I have not
remembered since I started this email. In English I guess
you'd take the Harvard Dictionary of Style combined with
an appropriate dictionary? In Japanese it would be standard
Japanese (that was easy!) which is pretty much polite
Tokyo-speak, thanks to the agressive attempts of previous
Japanese governments to stamp out all other dialects. ;-)

I daresay the style choice for a given language should be
made by the people on the debian-l10n-{language} mailing
list. And the adhered to by writings in that language...
Presumably a webpage listing such documents would be a
good idea.

As a native English and poor Japanese speaker, this
discussion can only really be of academic interest to me
since Japanese's computer-typographical formatting seems
to have been massively influenced by US English, and so
doesn't present any interesting cases (off the top of my
head) to parallel a marked difference in writing quality
between comma-seperated lists and semicolon/newline
seperated lists apparent in French but not in English.

I think in English semicolons and commas also seperate
different things, but I'd have to go back and reread the
apache description before I can comment on which is correct
in English here.

-- 
---
Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE
6th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
 -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
---


pgp7lFyXqwYFM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[OT] Storms (Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue))

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 08:05:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
 On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:27:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
 
  We have a similar expression in (American) English.  It's a tempest in
  a teapot.
 
 Storm in a teacup for British English.

:-)
Tormenta en un vaso de agua in Spanish. So it seems that french and 
spanish drink more water than tea.


Javi


pgps0as7IDTCB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:25:24PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
  The translation team. Any other scheme is flawed and tends to problems
  (people doing the same work will collide, it has happened in the past with
  translations and will happen in the future if the maintainer, and not the
  translation teams ,is still the one merging changes)
 
 The translation team will not get anything from BTS anyway... so i don't
 see how this can work. the DD will be always the interface in this case.
 user - BTS - DD - translation team

That's why might need a 'translation' tag so that translation teams can 
subscribe to the PTS for packages they translate and receive the 
'translation' bugs directly.

Currently, however, the DD does not always have to be the interface, that's 
what the PTS is for.
user - BTS - DD
|
.- translation team

But having a 'translation' tag makes it easier to handle.

   That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is
   the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it.
 
  Grisu is _not_ the translation team coordinator for French. Denis is.
  Grisu manages the DDTP but that does not mean he gets a decision on how a
  translation should be made.
 
 I did ask for a procedure. not to solve the problem from us. There is a
 difference.

Then you should have asked in debian-i18n, not to the translation team. In
my opinion things that happened (like people starting to talk in french and
not Cc'ing you) were related to using the translation team address and not
the -i18n one.

 If this was the only point in the entire discussion, sure i can leave it
 out and we can stop discussing here.
 

It's not the only point, but, as the thread at -l10n-french (and the one at 
-devel) show you think it's a layout issue whileas the french team thinks 
it's a typographical issue.

Friendly,

Javi

PS: My (english) typos are not premeditated, I just type too fast and don't 
red over what I send when time/work is pressing...


pgpttwkfEqUK5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:12:25 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:  

 Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are
 done except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a
 translation team works, but you do not understand the language,
 tough luck.

If this is a turf war between translators and developers; then
 the person with upload rights shall win. 

As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything
 shipped in my package, since it is my signature that goes with it,
 and I am responsible for all bugs. 

I suggest you tune down the confrontational tone.

manoj
-- 
Kill files are an expression of resentment by the unmemorable or
untalented against the memorable and talented.  Your appearance in
kill files merely marks the fact that you have more than once tried to
make people think, when they really would rather not.  It is an
honor. Tim Maroney, who is in at least a few...
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:04:43 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 

 Sure it is.  If they believe that the translator is wrong, they can
 ask a trusted person of their own to review the translation.  It is
 silly that people who do not speak a foreign language can have a
 judgement on what a translation should look like and perform changes
 in localized files (I am not talking about the Apache description
 here) without notifying the translator.

Silly? My, we must have a chip on our choulder. Equally silly
 as non-maintainers having delusions of control over what gets shipped
 with a package?

manoj
-- 
The tree in which the sap is stagnant remains fruitless. Hosea Ballou
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Tollef Fog Heen

*  (Denis Barbier)

| I sent a templates.fr file for cvs in #136340, which has been included
| in 1.11.1p1debian-4.  I do not know if this file was included verbatim,
| but 1.11.1p1debian-8 did not contain any 0xa0 characters (in ISO-8859-1
| encoding) which were replaced by normal spaces.  Now Tollef is telling
| me that those characters should never have been put into templates.fr,
| and removing them was right.

The mail sent to me from the BTS did _not_ include any 0xa0 characters
at all, and according to my .zsh_history, I did not wget the file off
the web, but rather copypasted the template from the mail.  (The mail
has charset: iso8859-1, so copypasting does not give me any charset
issues as warned in the mail).

I was confusing the template with the issue in 142665.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Martin Quinson

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:57:51PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
 On Tue, 13 May 2003, Martin Quinson wrote:
 
  On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:42:16AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
  
   If you really believe that the apache description should be improved than
   you file a bug against apache asking to changing layout, proposing the
   better one so that everyone can be alligned to it.
 
  If I understand well, you are bored because you think that the layout used
  in french could be good in all languages, but the french translators sort of
  kept it for themselves.
 
 No, I am not bored. People in some msgs wrote that the french layout is
 better. I am not against the fact that it can be better. Just use the
 right way so that everyone can benefit in a similar way.

But you missed our point saying that we don't want to use it in french
because it looks better, but because we have to. The fact that it looks
better and could be used in the other languages as well is another point,
and nobody in the french team never commented on that.

Again, in french, that's not just esthetical. And we, as french translators,
let you the decision about the esthetic of the thing for the other languages.

 I don't want to prevent you to use your language like i wouldn't like the
 otherw ay around. Is there any way to be closer to the original esthetical
 layout?

Nop. It must be so in French. The previous translation was an obvious error.

And I'm not the right person to decide if it's better looking in other
languages since I'm only native french speaker.



Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should be so
('cause maintainer cannot be responsible for translations they do not
understand. How do you handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and
bokmal?).

Correcting this lack is a completely other topic, too large to be discussed
here (browse debian-i18n archives if you really care).

As long as this lack isn't corrected, feel free to mark all bugs
concerning the french translation as forwarded to upstream, and forward it
to our mailing list. We will take care of them and help you to correct them.

Bye, Mt.

-- 
Learning and doing is the true spirit of free software -- learning without
doing gets you academic sterility, and doing without learning is all too
often the way things are done in proprietary software.
  -- Raph Levien

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Bill Allombert

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:40:17AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Telling them 'you do not speak french, so don't try to understand' is
not acceptable.
   
   Sure it is.  If they believe that the translator is wrong, they can
   ask a trusted person of their own to review the translation.
  
  I have done that several time myself. The result was several time that
  the ddtp translation were sheer nonsense. I am sorry. So I have used
  my veto right to uploaded meaningful translation.  Trust is not given
  for free, one need to deserve it.
 
 I guess that you did it for French translations.  Do you imagine

You guess wrong. I meant I have asked a trusted person (who was a
developer of the upstream project and was a native speaker) about the
translation. He tell me the translation was nonsense and provided me
with a correct one and was reviewed by other upstream developers.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Imagine a large red swirl here.

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Theodore Ts'o

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:

 Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
 think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
 a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should be so
 ('cause maintainer cannot be responsible for translations they do not
 understand. How do you handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and
 bokmal?).

This is a fundamental question for which there definitely isn't
consensus, and it is a fundamental polity (governance) issue.

One is that the linguistic teams have full and ultimate responsibility
over the translations, and there is no recourse or appeal if the
maintainer doesn't like what they have done.   

Another position is that the maintainer is ultimately responsible; he
or she may delegate responsibility to helpers, just as the Debian
Leader may delegate certain responsibilities to subordinates.
However, it is clear that the maintainer or the Debian Leader is
ultimately responsible, even if the wise maintainer and/or Debian
Leader may not choose to exercise his or her perogatives very often.

This point is a subtle one.  I will point out that in a corporate
setting, it's quite normal for the employer's manager and or his
manager's manager will not fully understand all of the work that that
the employee does.  Yet they are still responsible for the work of the
employee, and if they don't like it, they can tell the employee to do
things a different way, or in the extreme case, they can fire him.

Obviously, if the manager doesn't completely understand what the
employee is doing, there will be a certain negotiation, and a certain
back and forth over goals and directions and what is and isn't
technically possible, etc.  Hopefully, said negotiations will be done
in a mutally respectful and civil manner.  But that doesn't change the
fact that ultimately the manager gets to have the final say.

Which model people subscribe to makes a lot of difference in how they
communicate.  For example, if your manager doesn't like the work that you
do, even if you think his grounds for objecting may not be the best
ones, would you tell him, tough luck?   Probably not

- Ted

P.S.  To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
believed that the package maintainer was ultimately responsible.
Given comments and the tenor of the tone made by some of the people on
some of the language teams, it's not clear they believe that as
strongly today.

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Matthias Urlichs

Hi, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

 To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto rights, it
 seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP believed that the
 package maintainer was ultimately responsible.

It's the maintainer's name and signature on the package, after all.

On the other hand, the maintainer has to be able to trust their
translators. They're presumably doing it for the good of Debian and not
because they want to push their own agendas by subverting translations.

To get back to the case which triggered all this (reformatting a
comma-separated enumeration into a list), IMHO there is a perfectly valid
reason to do that -- Engllish-language text typically is shorter than the
equivalent in other languages, and French (with its tendency not to use
any nice short English-language words if it can possibly be helped) is no
exception.

Thus, what might be a nicely concise list of package attributes turns into
an unwieldy mess when translated to French or German.  :-/

-- 
Matthias Urlichs  | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
-- 
Someone on IRC was very sad about the uptime of his machine wrapping
from 497 days to 0.
-- linux-kernel

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Matthias Urlichs

Hi, Martin Quinson wrote:

 It must be so in French.

Sorry for being pedantic, but must is an overly strong word here.

You may have valid reasons for not using a comma-separated list here, but
French grammar certainly allows comma-separated enumerations if one so
desires. (Spoken language, for instance, if nothing else.)

They may be bad style (see my other email on that), but they're not
actually _forbidden_ by anybody.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs  | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
-- 
A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Christian Couder

On Wednesday 14 May 2003 14:27, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
  Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
  think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there
  is a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should
  be so ('cause maintainer cannot be responsible for translations they do
  not understand. How do you handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and
  bokmal?).

 This is a fundamental question for which there definitely isn't
 consensus, and it is a fundamental polity (governance) issue.

Yes, it is also linked with the problem of Translators' status in Debian.

The Constitution says :

Developers are volunteers who agree to further the aims of the Project 
insofar as they participate in it, and who maintain package(s) for the 
Project or do other work which the Project Leader's Delegate(s) consider 
worthwhile.

So if a Delegate consider Translators' work worthwile or if Translators 
maintain packages, they should be given the Developer status (if they follow 
the same kind of new maintainer process of course) and then be responsible 
for their work as well as Developers.

 One is that the linguistic teams have full and ultimate responsibility
 over the translations, and there is no recourse or appeal if the
 maintainer doesn't like what they have done.

There can be some recourse or appeal (to some committee or to the Project 
Leader) and the translator teams still maintain full and ultimate 
responsibility as well as Developers do. Don't give us false alternatives.

 Another position is that the maintainer is ultimately responsible; he
 or she may delegate responsibility to helpers, just as the Debian
 Leader may delegate certain responsibilities to subordinates.

This would clearly create 2 class of citizens within Debian or at least 
another hierachical level.

I wont go further discussing your message. The problem exists and has been 
ignored for a (too) long time. And my preference is clear.

Regards anyway,
Christian Couder (translator of Debian web pages since 1999 and still not 
Developer, so with no vote).

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-14 Thread Martin Quinson

[I only speak for myself, and not for the french translation team neither
for the ddtp, in which I'm not involved at all. Please flame *me* for what I
say]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
 
  Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
  think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
  a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should be so
  ('cause maintainer cannot be responsible for translations they do not
  understand. How do you handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and
  bokmal?).
 
 This is a fundamental question for which there definitely isn't
 consensus, and it is a fundamental polity (governance) issue.
 
 One is that the linguistic teams have full and ultimate responsibility
 over the translations, and there is no recourse or appeal if the
 maintainer doesn't like what they have done.   
 
 Another position is that the maintainer is ultimately responsible; he
 or she may delegate responsibility to helpers, just as the Debian
 Leader may delegate certain responsibilities to subordinates.
 However, it is clear that the maintainer or the Debian Leader is
 ultimately responsible, even if the wise maintainer and/or Debian
 Leader may not choose to exercise his or her perogatives very often.
 
 This point is a subtle one.  I will point out that in a corporate
 setting, it's quite normal for the employer's manager and or his
 manager's manager will not fully understand all of the work that that
 the employee does.  Yet they are still responsible for the work of the
 employee, and if they don't like it, they can tell the employee to do
 things a different way, or in the extreme case, they can fire him.
 
 Obviously, if the manager doesn't completely understand what the
 employee is doing, there will be a certain negotiation, and a certain
 back and forth over goals and directions and what is and isn't
 technically possible, etc.  Hopefully, said negotiations will be done
 in a mutally respectful and civil manner.  But that doesn't change the
 fact that ultimately the manager gets to have the final say.
 
 Which model people subscribe to makes a lot of difference in how they
 communicate.  For example, if your manager doesn't like the work that you
 do, even if you think his grounds for objecting may not be the best
 ones, would you tell him, tough luck?   Probably not
 
   - Ted
 
 P.S.  To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
 rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
 believed that the package maintainer was ultimately responsible.
 Given comments and the tenor of the tone made by some of the people on
 some of the language teams, it's not clear they believe that as
 strongly today.

Please keep in mind that I have nothing to do with the DDTP. My advice is
personal.

I completely agree with you on several points, like the fact that there is
no special reason in the constitution or in policy or in BCP or in any
official Debian writting to say that the maintainer is not responsible for
the content of the translations.

I only meant that it's rather illogical to ask to maintainer to review texts
in languages he/she don't understand. I know that this issue is related to
what can be found for porting to architectures the maintainer does not know,
but still, there is some quite fundamental differences here. 

Thanks to the wonderfull dbuild architecture, it is very easy to know if
there *is* a problem on a given architecture, and what the right solution
is (apply patches as long as dbuild repports an error). 

This is not true for translations, since no mecanical validation is enough.
Even if a text is ispell-clean, there might be a ton of gramatical error,
typographical ones and even badly constructed sentences which do not sound
well. 

Moreover, languages are sometimes difficult even for native speaker. French
is a rather good example of this complexity, and explains why we cam up with
so complicated reviewing processes within our team: webpages are posted at
least three time to the ML, in [ITT] mails for 'intend to translate', [DDR]
for 'ask for review', and [RELU] for 'reviewed, ready to be commited'
emails ; the DDTP integrate a reviewing process where all description have to
be accepted by 3 other translators before being declared as usable by the
end user.

So, if we need so much work to find a good translation when all involved
people are native french speaker, how can you explain that maintainers can
'detect errors in our work' (like the use of the non breaking space ASCII
code to follow our typographical rules), and corrupt our work so easily?

Please note that this discussion, like most of the previous ones on this
topic, is moving from a very simple problem (maintainer shouldn't try to
fix translation when they are not native

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 

 Your engagement for the quality of your package is really
 great. Only, I think that you are not responsible of the
 translation.

The maintainer is responsible for the package. And, unless the
 translation is not part of the package, the maintainer is responsible
 for it.

 I know that there is a lack in debian framework concerning this
 point, but it really should be so ('cause maintainer cannot be
 responsible for translations they do not understand. How do you
 handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and bokmal?).


Heck, there are parts of the code for packages that I maintain
 that I may not totally  understand; but I am still responsible for
 the package. When there are things I think the upstream has done
 incorrectly, I ask for help, or do research, and learn ennough to
 modify things, or revert recent changes. 

The  same applies to translations.

manoj
-- 
Old soldiers never die.  Young ones do.
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:27:53 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 

 Hi, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
 rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
 believed that the package maintainer was ultimately responsible.

 It's the maintainer's name and signature on the package, after all.

Quite so.

 On the other hand, the maintainer has to be able to trust their
 translators. They're presumably doing it for the good of Debian and
 not because they want to push their own agendas by subverting
 translations.

I trust my upstreams too. But I always look through the diffs
 on updates, and I have local patches to fix upstream bugs all the
 time. I may not undestand intricate upstream code, but that does not
 prevent me from fixing obvious bugs. 

I see the translations as upstream. A different upstream,
 perhaps, than the rest of the code, but I retain control of what goes
 in my packages.

manoj
-- 
I don't make the rules, Gil, I only play the game. Cash McCall
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files


On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 
 
  Your engagement for the quality of your package is really
  great. Only, I think that you are not responsible of the
  translation.
 
   The maintainer is responsible for the package. And, unless the
  translation is not part of the package, the maintainer is responsible
  for it.

Then, since, as far as I know the DDTP is _not_ included in the package the
maintainer is not responsible for it. The description is used by package
management tools, there is no such thing (I might be wrong) as a
Description-XX: field in the debian/control file (with XX being the code of 
any given language)

So, in this case, the dipute is settled. Not so much, however, for debconf 
messages which have been included in the DDTP recently [1]

Friendly


Javi

[1] http://ddtp.debian.org/stats/debconf/index.en.html



pgpCfsoj8CAUE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:18:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
  Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are
  done except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a
  translation team works, but you do not understand the language,
  tough luck.
 
   If this is a turf war between translators and developers; then
  the person with upload rights shall win. 

Yes. Probably.

   As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything
  shipped in my package, since it is my signature that goes with it,
  and I am responsible for all bugs. 

You do hold upstream responsible for the bugs in their software right? From
my point of view, same should go for translators. Translation-related bugs
should be the responsibility of the translation teams (and should be
forwarded to them). Some other projects (like GNOME [1] or KDE [2])
understand this and the translation (l10n work) translators get access to
the source code CVS and whatever they do gets merged with the programs if
it works (syntactically correct, compiles, etc..)

 
   I suggest you tune down the confrontational tone.

There's no such tone in my emails. The way people (from Spain) speak
spanish, however, is sometimes read/heard/seen as crude or even rude (even
in other spanish-speaking countries). 
Another cultural difference (*shrug*)

(Friendly) Regards

Javi

[1] http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gtp/
[2] http://i18n.kde.org/
Well, KDE goes so far as to have a separate CVS tree, that's why all the 
KDE i18n stuff is provided in different packages in Debian (they are 
provided in different tar.gzs upstream)


pgpe3GeomRacF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:04:43 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 
 
  Sure it is.  If they believe that the translator is wrong, they can
  ask a trusted person of their own to review the translation.  It is
  silly that people who do not speak a foreign language can have a
  judgement on what a translation should look like and perform changes
  in localized files (I am not talking about the Apache description
  here) without notifying the translator.
 
   Silly? My, we must have a chip on our choulder. Equally silly
  as non-maintainers having delusions of control over what gets shipped
  with a package?

Where did I say that?  I am only requesting that developers who do not
speak a given language do not edit their related l10n files, but ask
first a trusted person fluent in this language if changes are needed.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:07:18 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] said: 

 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:07:29 +0200, Martin Quinson
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

  Your engagement for the quality of your package is really
  great. Only, I think that you are not responsible of the
  translation.

 The maintainer is responsible for the package. And, unless the
 translation is not part of the package, the maintainer is
 responsible for it.

 Then, since, as far as I know the DDTP is _not_ included in the
 package the maintainer is not responsible for it.

Fair enough. Are there no plans, then, to ever integrates the
 translations into the package proper?

 So, in this case, the dipute is settled. Not so much, however, for
 debconf messages which have been included in the DDTP recently [1]

Well, I tend to close or reassign reports that can't be fixed
 by modifying my package. Is there a place to send these reports to? 

manoj
-- 
Neil Armstrong tripped.
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:17:50 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] said: 

 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:18:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything shipped in
 my package, since it is my signature that goes with it, and I am
 responsible for all bugs.

 You do hold upstream responsible for the bugs in their software
 right?

I don't shrug off my responsibilities so lightly. I am
 responsible for all my packages. I may need help to solve or diagnose
 some bugs, but every single bug on my packages receives my attention,
 and I work on trying to gather enough information to help upstream
 debug those issues.

In case the upstream does not respond, or does not think it is
 a bug, I create local patches. 


 From my point of view, same should go for translators.

Sure. When (if?) translated descriptions are included in
 packages, I'll contact the translators fiirst, perhaps including
 local changes until the matter is resolved.  Just like I do with
 upstream code. 

 Translation-related bugs should be the responsibility of the
 translation teams (and should be forwarded to them).

While translations reside outside my package, the bugs shall
 be reassigned (or closed), not forwarded. When the translation is in
 my package, the bug shall be forwarded, and perhaps I'll use local
 patches to correct the issue. 

manoj

-- 
Infancy, n.: The period of our lives when, according to Wordsworth,
Heaven lies about us.  The world begins lying about us pretty soon
afterward. Ambrose Bierce
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
 
  Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
  think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
  a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should be so
  ('cause maintainer cannot be responsible for translations they do not
  understand. How do you handle tranlations in russian, japaneese and
  bokmal?).
 
 This is a fundamental question for which there definitely isn't
 consensus, and it is a fundamental polity (governance) issue.
 
 One is that the linguistic teams have full and ultimate responsibility
 over the translations, and there is no recourse or appeal if the
 maintainer doesn't like what they have done.   
 
 Another position is that the maintainer is ultimately responsible; he
 or she may delegate responsibility to helpers, just as the Debian
 Leader may delegate certain responsibilities to subordinates.
 However, it is clear that the maintainer or the Debian Leader is
 ultimately responsible, even if the wise maintainer and/or Debian
 Leader may not choose to exercise his or her perogatives very often.

As far as Debian packages are concerned, the latter undoubtedly applies.
But having full control does not mean randomly breaking translations
or imposing inappropriate rules; maintainers should not perform any
changes in l10n files unless they *really* know what they do.  And
in such a case they should notify the translator to give him a choice
to argue if he disagrees, otherwise he could miss the changes.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
   Heck, there are parts of the code for packages that I maintain
  that I may not totally  understand; but I am still responsible for
  the package. When there are things I think the upstream has done
  incorrectly, I ask for help, or do research, and learn ennough to
  modify things, or revert recent changes. 
 
   The  same applies to translations.

If all developers did so, I would not have started this thread ;)

Here is how I would like l10n files being handled by developers:
  * Developers do not modify l10n files
  * If they believe that a translation is wrong, ask its translator
  * If they are in disagrement with the translator, ask a trusted person
fluent in this language (either debian-l10n-language or any other
person) for an arbitrage.  Developers should perform changes only
if they are told they are right to do so.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:27:02AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
[...]
 P.S.  To the extent that the DDTP gives the package maintainer veto
 rights, it seems pretty clear that at least initially the DDTP
 believed that the package maintainer was ultimately responsible.
 Given comments and the tenor of the tone made by some of the people on
 some of the language teams, it's not clear they believe that as
 strongly today.

AFAICT DDTP people are not involved in this discussion.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:25:20 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 

 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 Silly? My, we must have a chip on our choulder. Equally silly as
 non-maintainers having delusions of control over what gets shipped
 with a package?

 Where did I say that?  I am only requesting that developers who do
 not speak a given language do not edit their related l10n files, but
 ask first a trusted person fluent in this language if changes are
 needed.

This is no different from code: if I maintian software, and I
 may not understand all the complexities of the package in question,
 but when I think I discover a problem, I send a notice to the
 upistream (coder, translator), and, if I am not fluenbt in the
 language, I ask someone to help (who may not be the upstream
 code/translator). 

I then add a local patch correcting the issue until the matter
 is resolved upstream.

This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''. 

No one expects a maintainer to change code files either if
 they result is incorrect; that is just a bug. But maintainers are not
 admonished to never touch upstream files. 

If ever a translation is included in my packages, I certainly
 am not going to respect such a restriction against modifying files in
 my package.

manoj
-- 
My My, hey hey Rock and roll is here to stay The king is gone but he's
not forgotten It's better to burn out This is the story of a Johnny
Rotten Than to fade away It's better to burn out than it is to rust My
my, hey hey The king is gone but he's not forgotten It's out of the
blue and into the black Hey hey, my my They give you this, but you pay
for that Rock and roll can never die And once you're gone you can
never come back There's more to the picture When you're out of the
blue Than meets the eye And into the black Neil Young My My, Hey Hey
(Out of the Blue), Rust Never Sleeps
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, 14 May 2003 20:50:28 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 

 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 [...]
 Heck, there are parts of the code for packages that I maintain that
 I may not totally understand; but I am still responsible for the
 package. When there are things I think the upstream has done
 incorrectly, I ask for help, or do research, and learn ennough to
 modify things, or revert recent changes.

 The same applies to translations.

 If all developers did so, I would not have started this thread ;)

 Here is how I would like l10n files being handled by developers:
 * Developers do not modify l10n files
 * If they believe that a translation is wrong, ask its translator
 * If they are in disagrement with the translator, ask a trusted
 person fluent in this language (either debian-l10n-language or
 any other person) for an arbitrage.  Developers should perform
 changes only if they are told they are right to do so.


To be clear, I would state that as developers should take the
 same care at modifying translations as they do modifying code. No
 more, no less.

This assumes, of course, that the files in question are
 shipped with the package. For files residing somewhere else on the
 onternet, the developer has no control, and this whole discussion is
 moot. 

manoj
-- 
Being overloaded is the sign of a true Debian maintainer. JHM on
#Debian
Manoj Srivastava   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Do not touch l10n files

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:02:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
   This is no different from code: if I maintian software, and I
  may not understand all the complexities of the package in question,
  but when I think I discover a problem, I send a notice to the
  upistream (coder, translator), and, if I am not fluenbt in the
  language, I ask someone to help (who may not be the upstream
  code/translator). 
 
   I then add a local patch correcting the issue until the matter
  is resolved upstream.
 
   This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''. 

Hey, this was the subject, I had to get it short.  My original post
contained the following paragraph:
  So I would like to ask developers not to edit l10n files (templates,
  PO files, etc) themselves; if you believe that something goes wrong,
  notify the translator or his translation team (or any other trusted
  person).  If you disagree, think twice before applying your changes,  
  you are certainly wrong.

According to replies, this opinion is not shared by all developers.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-14 Thread Colin Watson

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
 On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:02:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
  This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''. 
 
 Hey, this was the subject, I had to get it short.  My original post
 contained the following paragraph:
   So I would like to ask developers not to edit l10n files (templates,
   PO files, etc) themselves; if you believe that something goes wrong,
   notify the translator or his translation team (or any other trusted
   person).  If you disagree, think twice before applying your changes,  
   you are certainly wrong.

Oh, rubbish. I won't claim to be able to deal with l10n files in every
language under the sun, but I'm familiar enough with several European
languages to be able to correct minor errors, make cautious small
updates when something has changed globally, and so on. As long as I'm
careful, I believe that this improves the state of l10n. Sure, I'll
usually remember to tell the translator about it too, but I have many
things to do, and translations are often the last thing I do before
making a release in order to make sure that they're as up to date as
possible so I'm often in a hurry.

Perhaps this is just a translation problem itself, but you are
certainly wrong has an incredibly arrogant tone. If you want a
reduction in hostility, *please* tone down your statements. Translators
are no more perfect than maintainers are. I could not possibly claim
with a straight face that all native English speakers speak better
English than all non-natives; from some (far from all) translations I've
been sent for languages I understand, the same is true of some people
translating to other languages too.

(Speaking of which, would anyone like to volunteer to translate man-db's
pt_BR PO file who doesn't insist on translating out-of-date versions
rather than the tarballs I spend effort on creating specifically for the
benefit of translators? :) I've repeatedly asked him to change his
practices, contacting him and his translation team to no avail; I've had
to resort to ignoring his patches because they really aren't of any use
any more. Thanks ...)

Maintainers and translators need to have *mutual* respect.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote:

 In this thread we were told to change the French translation because
 Apache maintainers did not like its layout.  I will come back to this
 issue below, but here is a better example of the problem I want to
 exhibit.

Here is the references to the thread. If you like to bring up discussion
in this way let people read everything and not only your summary that
takes points from different messages in wrong order and does not give any
idea on how the thread evolved during the time.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html

The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which
i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which
translators do not respect the layout of the original description.

 It is time to go back to the Apache description.  Maintainers are
 unhappy with the French translation provided by the DDTP.

Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
jumped in with some fancy reasons and even after 3/4 attempts to explain
to you why the layout has to be changed back you were not able to
understand them, as well you did not understand that there is a procedure
for requesting such a change. (all this has been discussed in the thread
and let's fly over the french part with some sarcastic Anyone has some
Valium? in which we were removed from the To: and Cc:)

 
  ok, the ddtp db has this english/french apache description:
  | # Package(s): apache
  | # Package priority: task
  | # Package prioritize: 50
  | Description: Versatile, high-performance HTTP server
  |  The most popular server in the world, Apache features a modular
  |  design and supports dynamic selection of extension modules at runtime.
  |  Some of its strong points are its range of possible customization,
  |  dynamic adjustment of the number of server processes, and a whole
  |  range of available modules including many authentication mechanisms,
  |  server-parsed HTML, server-side includes, access control, CERN httpd
  |  metafiles emulation, proxy caching, etc.  Apache also supports multiple
  |  virtual homing.
  |  .
  |  Separate Debian packages are available for PHP, mod_perl, Java
  |  Servlet support, Apache-SSL, and other common extensions.  More
  |  information is available at http://www.apache.org/.


  | Description-fr: Serveur HTTP polyvalent haute performance
  |  Serveur le plus populaire du monde, Apache est caracterise par sa 
  conception
  |  modulaire et autorise la selection dynamique des modules d'extension 
  lors de
  |  l'execution.
  |  Quelques-uns de ses points forts sont l'etendue des personnalisations
  |  possibles, l'ajustement dynamique du nombre de processus du serveur, un
  |  eventail complet de modules disponibles, incluant :
  |- plusieurs mecanismes d'authentification ;
  |- des analyseurs de serveurs de HTML ;
  |- des inclusions cote serveur ;
  |- un controle d'acces ;
  |- une emulation de metafichiers httpd CERN ;
  |- un cache proxy, etc.
  |  Apache supporte aussi les sites internes virtuels multiples.
  |  .
  |  Des paquets Debian separes sont disponibles pour le PHP, mod_perl, le
  |  support Servlet Java, Apache-SSL et d'autres extensions habituelles. Plus
  |  d'informations sont disponibles sur http://www.apache.org/.


 There is a comma separated list of items in English, and an itemized
 list in French.
 The point is that from a typographical point of view (in French) the
 preferred format for a long list of items is an itemized list; a comma
 separated list is considered as bad looking, this is certainly why
 the translator chose this format.  I do not know English rules about
 this issue, and thus cannot tell if original description is right
 or not.

you already received an answer to this here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00140.html

 Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
 and we are bound to it.

Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
message above.

 This is stupid, our constraints are different,
 so I do not see why we could not adopt another format if it is more
 adequate for our own language.

File a wishlist bug as you were told already:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

 Of course if there are good reasons
 to promote a given layout, you can give them[1], but telling that
 ``this is done that way in English so you must adopt this format
 too'' is insane.

You still were not able to explain us why the previous translation had the
same layout than (still in the same message as before)

 In conclusion, please do not try to impose your views on how
 translations should look like in

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Pierre Machard

Hi;

[I reply to this message, since I am the guy who translates the
Description]

On tue 13 may 2003 at 06:57 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
[...]
  Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
  and we are bound to it.
 
 Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
 a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
 message above.

Please try to consider that each language as its particularity. 

 
  This is stupid, our constraints are different,
  so I do not see why we could not adopt another format if it is more
  adequate for our own language.
 
 File a wishlist bug as you were told already:
 
 http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

A whishlist bug against what ? Against the French Language because we
do use an itemized list where English uses a different layout ?

  Of course if there are good reasons
  to promote a given layout, you can give them[1], but telling that
  ``this is done that way in English so you must adopt this format
  too'' is insane.
 
 You still were not able to explain us why the previous translation had the
 same layout than (still in the same message as before)

We are performing a lot of reviews to ensure that the quality of the
translation is good. 3 translators were agreed to use this translation.

  In conclusion, please do not try to impose your views on how
  translations should look like in your package.
 
 There are policies for description. DDTP as developers have to respect
 them. but i guess it is not your case since according to your post you do
 not contribute to any of them.
 
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00166.html

I do. Denis kindly answers to your message because he is _very_ relevant
with i18n and l10n.

Try to understand what Denis means. The problem on that very problem is
that you would not admit that we are true (from the translator's point of 
view). 

Generaly speeking, we (people aware of l10n and i18n) believe that the 
maintainer's job is not to deal with these issues. Translators are
bored to fix maintainers mistakes. Moreover, I believe that a maintainer
should not loose his time on l10n. 

  You have to make sure that translations are up to date and correct, but
  when you edit translated files yourself, you are most of the times
  making translator's life harder without any gain for our end users.
 
 Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
 all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
 to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
 layout alligned with the others.

The question is Why do you want to have its layout alligned with the
others ?


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre Machard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  TuxFamily.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] techmag.info
+33(0)668 178 365http://migus.tuxfamily.org/gpg.txt
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87


pgpR9yZQuT5L7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Pierre Machard wrote:

Hi;

[I reply to this message, since I am the guy who translates the
Description]

On tue 13 may 2003 at 06:57 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
[...]
Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
and we are bound to it.

Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
message above.

Please try to consider that each language as its particularity.

I do not understand why the previous translation was alligned to our
layout and noone is still able to give me an answer about this.

File a wishlist bug as you were told already:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

A whishlist bug against what ? Against the French Language because we
do use an itemized list where English uses a different layout ?

If you really believe that the apache description should be improved than
you file a bug against apache asking to changing layout, proposing the
better one so that everyone can be alligned to it.

We are performing a lot of reviews to ensure that the quality of the
translation is good. 3 translators were agreed to use this translation.

We did not, i will repeat this until the end of the world, discuss the
quality of the contents. We are discussing the layout. Quoting myself
from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00123.html

Be carefull. We don't want to make a big deal out of it and neither we
are telling the french translation team that is bad what they did. We
appreciate seriously the effort that the ddtp team is doing. What we are
saying is that if they prefer another format they can just contanct us. We
are open to suggestions. We just didn't really like the way it was done
and that the format is not coherent with the original one.

I do. Denis kindly answers to your message because he is _very_ relevant
with i18n and l10n.

Until the last 2 messages I did not asked for name or pointed fingers
against people directly and i kept the talk as much generic as possible
because i don't care who does the job until it gets done correctly.

Try to understand what Denis means. The problem on that very problem is
that you would not admit that we are true (from the translator's point of
view).

from the translator point of view you should only translate. That's what i
do when i submit italian translation. If have a concern about anything
else i ask the maintainer. prove that I am wrong.

Generaly speeking, we (people aware of l10n and i18n) believe that the
maintainer's job is not to deal with these issues. Translators are
bored to fix maintainers mistakes. Moreover, I believe that a maintainer
should not loose his time on l10n.

Yes we do.

just an examoke:

http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-pkg-desc

The long description should consist of full and complete sentences.

I miss to see how a list can fullfil this reference.

Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
layout alligned with the others.

The question is Why do you want to have its layout alligned with the
others ?

I could simply ask you the question the other way around: why do you want
to be different from all the others? but it's a chicken egg stupid game.

The reason is simple. The DD decide the layout and the descriptio and it
is responsable for it again the community and the users, no matter in
which language. All the others cope with our layout and i don't see any
language barrier that does not permit you to do so.

Fabio

--
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
We are on a mission from God - Elwood Blues

http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:57:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
(...)
 
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html
 
 The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which
 i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which
 translators do not respect the layout of the original description.

IMHO this should have been discussed in the debian-i18n first.

(...)
  It is time to go back to the Apache description.  Maintainers are
  unhappy with the French translation provided by the DDTP.
 
 Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
 back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
(..)

Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are done 
except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a translation team 
works, but you do not understand the language, tough luck. 

  There is a comma separated list of items in English, and an itemized
  list in French.
  The point is that from a typographical point of view (in French) the
  preferred format for a long list of items is an itemized list; a comma
  separated list is considered as bad looking, this is certainly why
  the translator chose this format.  I do not know English rules about
  this issue, and thus cannot tell if original description is right
  or not.
 
 you already received an answer to this here:
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00140.html
(...)

And he answered you back. The layout of the french description was changed
because it _did_not_ fit French typographical rules. The first translator
made a mistake (quite usual since people translating don't always know
their own language's rules) and it was fixed later on by fixing the layout
(4 months later?) Makes sense to me.

  Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
  and we are bound to it.
 
 Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
 a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
 message above.

The official maintainer is in _no_ way responsible for the _translated_ 
description of a package. Please, let translation teams do their work 
without interfeering. 

 
 File a wishlist bug as you were told already:
 
 http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

DDTP is not handled by BTS bugs. 

 There are policies for description. DDTP as developers have to respect
 them. but i guess it is not your case since according to your post you do
 not contribute to any of them.
 
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00166.html

First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his 
po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know 
who you are you talking with.

Second, there are no policies for translations. DDTP translators have to 
respect the views of their language translation team, not of the 
maintainer. If you wish to change that view, join the translation team, do 
not impose the changes upstream (from the developer side). If you do not 
read the language or understand it then, at most, you can send a mail to 
the Debian translation coordinator [1]

 Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
 all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
 to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
 layout alligned with the others.
 

They don't have to! Content and layout in a translation is part of what the 
translator has to do. If there are typographical rules that make necessary 
a layout change a translator has to apply them!

Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same 
sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in Spanish 
is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation.

I completely agree with Denis that developers or upstreams should not
interfere at all with the translation work, much less make changes to
translated files (unless trivial, and even then they should be notified). 
Otherwise it makes it impossible for translators work in a constant
translate and review process parallel to the work done upstream (and broken
if somebody removes fuzzy entries, modifies text or change gettext's XX.po
in anyway)

Regards



Javi


[1] There is really no such position in Debian for all languages, but you 
can take the web translation list at 
www.debian.org/devel/website/translation_coordinators
or try to find them in 
www.debian.org/international


pgprmerbR7Idx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Denis Barbier

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:57:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 On Tue, 13 May 2003, Denis Barbier wrote:
 
  In this thread we were told to change the French translation because
  Apache maintainers did not like its layout.  I will come back to this
  issue below, but here is a better example of the problem I want to
  exhibit.
 
 Here is the references to the thread. If you like to bring up discussion
 in this way let people read everything and not only your summary that
 takes points from different messages in wrong order and does not give any
 idea on how the thread evolved during the time.
 
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html

Original subject was kept in order to let people find this thread easily,
but I could indeed have made this pointer available.

[...]
 (all this has been discussed in the thread and let's fly over the
 french part with some sarcastic Anyone has some Valium? in which
 we were removed from the To: and Cc:)

I posted some messages to d-l-f only in French in order to get
clarifications in my mother tongue, and also to ask if other
translators could jump in.
About the Valium sentence, I suggest you to have all my messages
translated into English, you obviously do not read French.  In this
thread I was telling that this discussion was getting on my nerves
and I needed some Valium to calm me down.  I won't try to make you
believe that my posts did not contain any sarcasm, but they can
mostly be found in English messages, no need to misinterpret the
French ones.

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

 On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:57:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
 (...)
 
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2003/debian-l10n-french-200305/msg00121.html
 
  The first post to the mailing list is the result of the only mail in which
  i was asking Michael Bramer how to behave in the situation in which
  translators do not respect the layout of the original description.

 IMHO this should have been discussed in the debian-i18n first.

That was not my decision, i was asking information and got an answer
posted back to the l10n-french.

  Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
  back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
 (..)

 Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are done
 except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a translation team
 works, but you do not understand the language, tough luck.

Do you think it is nice to start a discussion in english and see it forked
in another language? specially when a exchange of information could have
solved the issue at a much earlier stage?

   Now Apache maintainers are telling us that they chose another layout
   and we are bound to it.
 
  Yes because the official maintainer is responsable for the description of
  a package. Including the layout and this was told already in the same
  message above.

 The official maintainer is in _no_ way responsible for the _translated_
 description of a package. Please, let translation teams do their work
 without interfeering.

When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on
descriptions? you or the dd?

 
  File a wishlist bug as you were told already:
 
  http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

 DDTP is not handled by BTS bugs.

Than please re-read my post. If believes that the french layout is better
why not appling it to all the descriptions?

 First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his
 po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know
 who you are you talking with.

Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar...
read my other posts please before saying so.

 Second, there are no policies for translations. DDTP translators have to
 respect the views of their language translation team, not of the
 maintainer. If you wish to change that view, join the translation team, do
 not impose the changes upstream (from the developer side). If you do not
 read the language or understand it then, at most, you can send a mail to
 the Debian translation coordinator [1]

That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is
the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it.

  Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
  all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
  to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
  layout alligned with the others.
 

 They don't have to! Content and layout in a translation is part of what the
 translator has to do. If there are typographical rules that make necessary
 a layout change a translator has to apply them!

And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information?

 Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same
 sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in Spanish
 is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation.

Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout.

 [1] There is really no such position in Debian for all languages, but you
 can take the web translation list at
 www.debian.org/devel/website/translation_coordinators
 or try to find them in
 www.debian.org/international

thanks
Fabio

-- 
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
We are on a mission from God - Elwood Blues

http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Yannick Roehlly

Dear Debian fellows,

In France,  we have  an expression that  says a  storm in a  glass of
water. I sincerely think we are in such a case.

Let  me summarise  what  happened, according  to  what I  read on  the
debian-l10-french list.

Once,  there was a  description for  the Apache  package using  a long
coma-separated  list  for the  apache  modules  both  in the  original
description and in the French translation.

Then, the apache maintainers changed the description only changing the
PHP3  in  PHP.  What  bother  Fabio Massimo  is  that  the new  French
translation goes  further and  also changes the  layout of  the module
list.

I'm sure being a package maintainer is like taking care of a baby and,
as a good  father, you feel very concerned  even with the translations
of your baby. This honours you but...

Fabio Massimo, you say :

 Yes we are [unhappy with the new translation since in the first place we 
 asked nicely to change the layout
 back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
 jumped in with some fancy reasons and even after 3/4 attempts to explain
 to you why the layout has to be changed back you were not able to
 understand them, 

I'm sorry, but you never explained  - at least on the french l10n list
- why the layout  of the translation had to be  changed. You only said
that  the maintainers  are  responsible  of the  layout  and that  you
dislike the new one so it has to be changed.

Dear maintainers,  are the layouts  of the translations  so important?
Maybe sometimes a strange layout  can cause technical problems for its
displaying, but  I don't think  coma-separated list vs.  itemised list
worth the fight.



Furthermore,  theses  mails  rise  the problem  of  conflicts  between
maintainers and translators about translations.

I am not a real Debian translator (do I loose all credibility for what
I said before? ;-). I'm just a proof-reader.

I agree  that the English version  of a Debian document  should be the
official  one,  because  it's  expected  to be  understood  by  most
people. But  when you  have to  translate a text,  you are  facing two
sorts of  problems: the specific  requirements of your  language (like
non-breaking spaces  in French) and  the in my language,  we'd rather
say this in that way. Thus,  if we want to make a _good_ translation,
and I'm  sure everybody  wants it  here, we often  have to  make large
changes in  the translation.  I can  tell you that  we are  making big
effort to be sure not to pervert the initial sense of the text.

Is  it  a problem?  Shouldn't  the  maintainers  be confident  in  the
translators and their work?

I'm sure we are here to walk  together to make Debian a good (well, in
fact a  better, it's yet very  good) distribution. So lets  not make a
storms in glass of water.

Communautairement, (fellowshiply ?)

Yannick

Re: Do not touch l10n files

2003-05-13 Thread Denis Barbier

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:12:25AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[...]
 First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his 
 po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know 
 who you are you talking with.
[...]

Not really, I did not perform any work for the DDTP, which is Grisu's baby.
And I must also admit that some of my posts were not kindful, so they can
flame me if they want, it does not matter ;)

Denis

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Jean-Philippe Guérard

Hi !

Le 2003-05-13 09:42:16 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto écrivait :
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Pierre Machard wrote:
just an examoke:

http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-pkg-desc

The long description should consist of full and complete sentences.

I miss to see how a list can fullfil this reference.

Please note that the long list that you mention is, in French, a single
complete sentence:

| Description-fr: Serveur HTTP polyvalent haute performance
| Serveur le plus populaire du monde, Apache est caracterise par sa conception
| modulaire et autorise la selection dynamique des modules d'extension lors de
| l'execution.
| Quelques-uns de ses points forts sont l'etendue des personnalisations
| possibles, l'ajustement dynamique du nombre de processus du serveur, un
| eventail complet de modules disponibles, incluant :
|- plusieurs mecanismes d'authentification ;
|- des analyseurs de serveurs de HTML ;
|- des inclusions cote serveur ;
|- un controle d'acces ;
|- une emulation de metafichiers httpd CERN ;
|- un cache proxy, etc.
| Apache supporte aussi les sites internes virtuels multiples.
| .
| Des paquets Debian separes sont disponibles pour le PHP, mod_perl, le
| support Servlet Java, Apache-SSL et d'autres extensions habituelles. Plus
| d'informations sont disponibles sur http://www.apache.org/.

The sentence starts at Quelques-uns and ends with - un cache proxy.
This is why there are semi-comas instead of dots at the end of each
item, and also why there are no capital at the beginning of each
item. This is a French typographical convention.

Your text has not been cut in separate items, but is simply written
following the French typographical rules.

HTH.

--
Jean-Philippe Guérard -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:01:49AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
   Yes we are since in the first place we asked nicely to change the layout
   back to the original one (as it was before this translation) and then you
  (..)
 
  Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are done
  except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a translation team
  works, but you do not understand the language, tough luck.
 
 Do you think it is nice to start a discussion in english and see it forked
 in another language? specially when a exchange of information could have
 solved the issue at a much earlier stage?

I won't discuss that. It probably was not nice switching to other language 
but Denis was, in my point of view, asking the rest of the team (which 
might not be fluent in english)

  The official maintainer is in _no_ way responsible for the _translated_
  description of a package. Please, let translation teams do their work
  without interfeering.
 
 When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on
 descriptions? you or the dd?

The translation team. Any other scheme is flawed and tends to problems
(people doing the same work will collide, it has happened in the past with
translations and will happen in the future if the maintainer, and not the
translation teams ,is still the one merging changes)

 Than please re-read my post. If believes that the french layout is better
 why not appling it to all the descriptions?

Because the layout is based on typographical conventions. That's what Denis 
said (more than once). What applied to french might not apply to english, 
or spanish, or chinese.

  First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his
  po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know
  who you are you talking with.
 
 Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar...
 read my other posts please before saying so.

I read the thread you pointed. I also read your answer (the you are not 
working on the DDP).

 That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is
 the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it.

Grisu is _not_ the translation team coordinator for French. Denis is.
Grisu manages the DDTP but that does not mean he gets a decision on how a 
translation should be made.

   Why do you think we did ask kindly to have the french layout alligned with
   all the others? and we did not changed it ourself? Because we did not want
   to change the contents of the description even for a typo but having its
   layout alligned with the others.
  
 
  They don't have to! Content and layout in a translation is part of what the
  translator has to do. If there are typographical rules that make necessary
  a layout change a translator has to apply them!
 
 And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information?

You also help it becomse so, by being stubborn and not accepting Denis 
point of view.

  Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same
  sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in Spanish
  is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation.
 
 Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout.

Could you please leave the layout-thingy? If an itemised list is not 
understood in say, Chowinese (just invented the language), you cannot push 
it through the throat of the translation team, however you are. It will 
_not_ be understood by the native language speakers, it will not sound 
proper or what else.

 thanks
 Fabio
 

Friendly,


Javi


pgpSzsT3DKBAQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

 I won't discuss that. It probably was not nice switching to other language
 but Denis was, in my point of view, asking the rest of the team (which
 might not be fluent in english)

Let's stop any discussion that is not focused on the origianl question.

  When DDTP will be integrate 100% in the system who will receive bugs on
  descriptions? you or the dd?

 The translation team. Any other scheme is flawed and tends to problems
 (people doing the same work will collide, it has happened in the past with
 translations and will happen in the future if the maintainer, and not the
 translation teams ,is still the one merging changes)

The translation team will not get anything from BTS anyway... so i don't
see how this can work. the DD will be always the interface in this case.
user - BTS - DD - translation team

   First, thanks to Denis work, projects like DDTP are possible. Without his
   po-debconf half of the DDTP would be unmanagable. Please take time to know
   who you are you talking with.
 
  Still again I did so... but people were to busy taking up a flamewar...
  read my other posts please before saying so.

 I read the thread you pointed. I also read your answer (the you are not
 working on the DDP).

My thanks went to the entire DDTP community because i appreciate their
work and i still do so.

  That's why i was asking information to grisu in the beginning for which is
  the proper procedure. Only a nice flamewar was born out of it.

 Grisu is _not_ the translation team coordinator for French. Denis is.
 Grisu manages the DDTP but that does not mean he gets a decision on how a
 translation should be made.

I did ask for a procedure. not to solve the problem from us. There is a
difference.

  And is this a reason to start a flamewar because i was asking information?

 You also help it becomse so, by being stubborn and not accepting Denis
 point of view.

I probably helped since asking something nicely didn't help much and
ansering back in a more formal way either.


   Saying otherwise is like saying that I have to keep, in Spanish, the same
   sentences as constructed in English when, frequently, a sentence in 
   Spanish
   is longer than in English and I can group information in the translation.
 
  Changing words and senteces does not necessary means changing layout.

 Could you please leave the layout-thingy?

If this was the only point in the entire discussion, sure i can leave it
out and we can stop discussing here.


Fabio

-- 
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
We are on a mission from God - Elwood Blues

http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp4.html

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)

2003-05-13 Thread Martin Quinson

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:42:16AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:

If you really believe that the apache description should be improved than
you file a bug against apache asking to changing layout, proposing the
better one so that everyone can be alligned to it.

If I understand well, you are bored because you think that the layout used
in french could be good in all languages, but the french translators sort of
kept it for themselves.

But we didn't do that because we don't think that the french typographical
rules should be used in all languages, as well as we think that the english
typographical rules do not apply in French.

We are performing a lot of reviews to ensure that the quality of the
translation is good. 3 translators were agreed to use this translation.

We did not, i will repeat this until the end of the world, discuss the
quality of the contents. We are discussing the layout.

No, not exactly. We are not discussing esthetical layout here.

This layout in french is not only esthetical, it must be so because of
typographical rules[1]. That's why we didn't think that all languages must
follow the same rules. In written french, the typographical rules have
almost the same impact than gramatical ones.

But feel free to adapt this new layout to the original text if you want
to. Only, don't try to prevent us to follow the rules in our language.

For example, we always put a space before the colon symbol (a non-breaking
space when technically possible), but we won't repport as an error in the
original text a colon without space before (as requiered by english
typographical rules). That's the same kind of thing for us.

Bye, Mt.

[1] Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'imprimerie nationale,
ISBN: 2743304820. Available at:
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2743304820/qid%3D1047692993/sr%3D1-4/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F2%5F4/402-2014446-9559346

--
Don't drink as root!

Re: Do not touch l10n files (was Re: DDTP issue)