W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-translators@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Hosting vs linking (was Re: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html40-updates/translations.html)

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:27:41 +0900
Message-Id: <199902100054.JAA00970@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-translators@w3.org
At 10:56 99/02/09 -0500, Francois Yergeau wrote:
> タ 17:46 08/02/99 -0500, Ian Jacobs a 馗rit :
> >I think almost nothing is cast in stone. However, if
> >we accept one, where do we stop? We don't have the time to
> >assure the quality of 15 translations of 50 specs,
> >so we just link to them with disclaimers. 
> 
> What's the difference between linking with a disclaimer and hosting with
> the same disclaimer?

Adding a link takes five minutes. If any problems are discovered, we
can also remove it in five minutes. Hosting means that we have to
check a lot of things, it's much more work.


> The W3C already hosts numerous documents (e.g.
> submissions) which it explicitely does not approve.  Nothing new here.

So why don't you try and submit a translation if you have one?


> Hosting would provide stable URLs for translations of stable W3C specs.

W3C is not the only organization providing stable URIs, is it?


> The W3C, with hosts on three continents, offices everywhere and "World
> Wide" in its name, shouldn't be that shy about translations.

We are not shy. We are trying to achieve a maximum of effect with
a minimum of effort. We currently barely manage to make sure that
the Recommendations produced are appropriately internationalized.
My personal opinion is that this is more important than having
the translations hosted.


> Furthermore, the Process document (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)
> says this (in 6.1) :
> 
> "The primary language for official W3C documents is English. In addition to
> the official English version of a document, W3C welcomes translated versions."
> 
> Doesn't look like a warm welcome to me, especially for translations made
> bona fide, without expending Consortium resources.

What is the original problem? I doubt that there should be a problem
to find a site to host a translation. It actually should add value
to that site. That's actually why quite some translators want to have
it on their site.

Also, because the translations are done by volunteers, they are
frequently done piece by piece, especially if they are large.
We couldn't host partial translations, and handle all the updates.
There are also cases where there are two or more teams, and this
would mean that we would have to favor one of the translations,
or host two differing translations.

What do the other translators on this list think?

Regards,   Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 1999 19:55:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:27:30 UTC