Re: About file html40-errata.html

At 01:57 PM 3/17/98 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
 >When translating a technical document, I think translators should stay
 >as close to the text as they can since (I don't feel as strongly
 >about translating non-technical documents). However, I don't think
 >it makes sense to translate recognized editorial errors, i.e., those
 >that the original authors have clearly listed on the errata page. 
 >If we wrote "the the" by mistake, French translators should not
 >have to write "le le" and translate the errata sheet to read "Le
 >texte d'origine contient par erreur 'le le'". 

Makes sense.

 >The HTML 4.0 errata sheet is clearly divided into two sections:
 >stupid editorial mistakes on one hand and editorial or semantic

This is good for HTML, that it even has an errata sheet, but other specs may
not and I'd like to keep people constrained.

 >ambiguities on the other. I think translators should be allowed
 >to eliminate the first class of errors, perhaps
 >with a note in the translation stating that the error was corrected ;

This seems reasonable, but I hesitate to even mention this in a sense, it
makes are  policy that more complicated in a sense. I think this may be one
of those instances where the official policy is, "please translate
literally" but "if you delete a 'the the' we aren't going to complain." In
the specific instance of HTML4.0, the "minor typographical errors" could be
something we accept. 

 >the erratum itself should not be translated. For the second class
 >of errors, translators should leave the spec as is and point to
 >a translated errata sheet. In the latter case, it makes sense
 >(and is important) to provide a translation of the semantic error.

Agreed. If the other editors of the HTML spec don't mind having the "minor
typographical errors" corrected in translations, I'll be happy to follow up
with Mr. Diodati. (Or you can even, please cc: me.)

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 1998 15:42:56 UTC