Re: Status of jlreq multilingual doc & proposal to replace current version

On 09/05/2019 06:02, Atsushi Shimono (W3C Team) wrote:
>    hi Richard-san
> 
>    One question (or food-for-thought?) and one memo for myself.
> # 簡単なまとめin日本語 : 説明がなく日英で同じ画像の図がいくつかあるので 
> 'All'を選択した時に一つ
> だけ表示できたらよさそうかと思った。また日英の図がくっついて表示されてい 
> るので離したい。
> 
>    Is it possible to use only one image file for both English and 
> Japanese in current scripting
> environment? (and is there any similar situation in other - clreq or 
> klreq?)

It is possible, but it will take some time to identify and edit all the 
instances needing this change, and then it also makes it necessary to 
reverse the changes if an image is modified at a later date.  I took the 
simpler route for the sake of efficiency, but also it seems to me that 
if you're viewing in 'All' mode you need to accept that this is really 
an editorial view. (Remember that we have a discussion planned as to 
whether the page should start up in bilingual or monolingual mode.)

>    Like Figure 145, some figure files do not contain description, so 
> English version and Japanese
> version are the same. In 'All' format, two are displayed at close 
> position each other. This may
> make reader/user to be confused such that why there shows two same image 
> - even they selected to
> show both.
>    Memo for myself: in 'All' format, it seems two images for English and 
> Japanese are displayed
> closer (or sticking together), and I feel better to have some space to 
> tell boundary. Some figure
> has texts close to its boundary which also makes boundary to be unclear.
>    I'll try to check style to have some space in between. (or it is 
> prevented for some reason??)

I added some styling to separate the english and japanese images.


> On 2019/05/08 20:38, r12a wrote:
>>> I think we are almost ready to replace the current editor's drafts 
>>> for jlreq (en & ja) with the new multilingual version of the 
>>> document.  Here are what i think are remaining steps, none of which 
>>> block moving the new version into place, i think:
>>
>>
>> I'm not hearing any objections to this, so i will begin preparations 
>> to replace the current structure of the repo with the new versions of 
>> the document.
> 
> 
> 
>    I'll try to add PRs asap after transition for errata which already 
> have update in mail list.
>    Ah, do I need to raise one PR for one (set of) figure file 
> corresponding to one issue? (should
> be yes,, I know...)

Not sure i understand this question.

ri

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2019 05:40:33 UTC