Re: Merging en & ja jlreq

Hi Richard,

Thank you very much for coming up with the guideline for editing multilingual documents, as well as the trial merge of JLReq.

> If this all looks satisfactory, let me know and i will continue those edits.

Shimono-san and all?

> Btw, does the group want to publish the final WG Note version as a multilingual document, or as two separate language versions?  Both are possible.


The agreement at the meeting was to publish it as a multilingual document with ability to switch languages just like temporary_bilingual_devt that you prototyped (as wall as {ck}lreq).

Best regards,

- kida

> 2019/04/18 15:20、r12a <ishida@w3.org>のメール:
> 
> hi Kida-san, all,
> 
> Yesterday i did some work to help you assess the impact of merging the two language versions of jlreq into one, to help the editors.
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/blob/gh-pages/EDITING.md is not yet finished, but indicates how editors or contributors will need to proceed.
> 
> To give an idea of the final result (and because i expect that the group will want to eventually work on a bilingual document like they did before) i started work on the merge.  You can see the results so far at
> https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/temporary_bilingual_devt/
> (ignore the front matter for now - that needs more specialised work, and i know that it currently shows Chinese instead of Japanese)
> The switch for viewing in a particular language is at the top of the page.
> 
> If this all looks satisfactory, let me know and i will continue those edits.
> 
> Btw, does the group want to publish the final WG Note version as a multilingual document, or as two separate language versions?  Both are possible.
> 
> hope that helps,
> ri
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/04/2019 10:23, Yasuo Kida wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> Thank you for your input. How do you see pros and cons of merging the languages into a single document like some other ones? I would like to understand the complexities you mentioned.
>> What I heard is that the original document had Japanese and English in parallel. I believe it was so to make synchronization between the languages easier at the authoring time, and I am guessing merging will give us the same benefit to the web version (which will be the source for the future revisions). As the source is already in this format, the work required for the merge would be smaller than otherwise.
>> Other benefit I see is that it gives us single URL for JLReq regardless of the language the user speaks.
>> If however the work is larger than we anticipated (if so Shimono-san please let us know), or if we found that it does not have enough benefits, then I believe we should revisit our decision.

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2019 07:18:13 UTC