- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:21:21 +0100
- To: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com
- Cc: andrew.j.welch@gmail.com, Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM, <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com> wrote: > The reason why the I18N BP document frowns upon this is because if you have > the material sent for translation, it might (or most probably will) be > translated by different people in different places. So it makes coordination > a little difficult when all the different language texts are in the same > file. That is a big problem if you have substantial amounts of text in the > file. In the case of widgets, there might not be such huge amounts of text > in the config file, so that’s a mitigating circumstance for this horrible > negligence. :-) I see. > Let’s assess how much translatable text there would be in a config file in > the worst case, and then decide if we know well enough to break the best > practice or not. > > Marcos came up with the following list: > > The following elements would be localizable: > > widget (but no id or version, derived from root config, if available) > name > description > author > license > icon > content > preference > screenshot > > (BTW Marcos, are you sure “content” and “preference” should be there? Also > maybe author should be dropped. License I can understand, but probably not > to be used to present different versions of a license, just translations of > the same license.) I'm ok to drop author. Content I think we should keep because you might need different start files for different langs to achieve particular layouts. Preferences i don't feel too strongly about, but I can see use cases for having localized preferences. License, I agree, but there is obviously no way to check if it is a translation, but we could certainly put in a Authoring Guideline. > All of these seem to have a fairly limited amount of translatable / > localizable content, so would the ease of processing and the general > simplification warrant the possible inconvenience in having the text > translated? The license seems to be the biggest block of translatable text, > and therefore potentially the biggest problem. I guess as it is one element, it should not bee too much drama. > (NOTE: A system for widget authoring that is connected to the back-end of > the vendor’s translation memory / CMS could generate the config file > automatically, eliminating the need to translate the actual config files by > hand. Translations and other localized material can be assembled into the > CMS prior to generating the config file.) Agreed. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 16:22:02 UTC