- From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:46:09 -0800
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: zara <zara@arobas.net>, w3c-translators@w3.org
Ivan Herman a écrit : > To be honest: there is no rule afaik. Personally, I would prefer the > original order, because it gives an easier way to get back to he > original, and consequently authoritative version of the document. I beg to disagree. The goal of a translation is to provide access to a spec to readers of the target language. If a list of terms in the original is alphabetized, it is to make it easily searchable for readers, and the same convenience should be given to readers in the target language. I don't quite see what the point is of "to get back to he original". Each translation necessarily contains a link to that, and it doesn't seem that making the translation less useful (by not alphabetizing) would improve access to the original in any way. -- François > If you > generate the glossary via a tool, having an appendix giving the glossary > in local alphabetic order, too, might be a good idea... > > Ivan > > zara wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> When translating a W3C document that has a glossary of terms, is there a >> standard practice for the presentation of terms, i.e. should translated >> terms be listed alphabetically or listed as originally presented in >> English, >> therefore usually resulting in terms that are not listed >> alphabetically in >> the translated version ? >> >> I have looked at other (French) translations that had glossaries and >> found >> that they listed terms in the original order of the initial document >> (therefore, the translated version did not list the terms >> alphabetically). >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Catherine >> >> >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> www.w3qc.org www.communautique.qc.ca http://perso.b2b2c.ca/zara/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 16 January 2005 18:47:31 UTC