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

Hi,

	I host one translation myself (SMIL 1.0). I have no problem with this. Of
course, the problem is that W3C and my provider, being distinct
organisations separated by an ocean can be off-line or inaccessible at
different stages. It would make perfect sense to have the translations
available simultaneously with W3C's availability.
	Also, having N translations on N sites means that the probability of some
translations getting lost or being unavailable rises exponentially!
	For W3C to host a translation, it's not all that much work: it's a simple
matter of having a folder for the files and a link on the English version.
	If something goes wrong, simply delete the link and move the folder to a
location without Web access.
	Of course there are lot's of reliable providers out there. They're just not
all for free! And doesn't a Geocities page for hosting a W3C translation
removes some credibility from it...?

	Leonel

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-translators-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-translators-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Martin J. Duerst
Sent: Quarta-feira, 10 de Fevereiro de 1999 0:28
To: Francois Yergeau
Cc: Ian Jacobs; w3c-translators@w3.org
Subject: Re: Hosting vs linking (was Re:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html40-updates/translations.html)

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.

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 1999 05:43:12 UTC