Re: standard practice for links in translated documents

zara wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> 
> 
>>We would prefer to link to the original document. 
> 
> 
> I expected this answer but felt that the question needed to be asked.  I can
> understand that in certain cases, like a link to a specification or an
> official recommendation, linking to a translation may make W3C uncomfortable
> (although, if W3C has accepted to have it translated and links to it from
> the translation site, then it should mean they have looked at it and are
> comfortable with its content).  But in the case we are talking about, where
> the principal document concerns general information on accessibility
> concepts and links to related documents (a few already available in French,
> others that I would like to translate once I am done with this one), then I
> see no logical reason not to offer links to the user's language when they
> are available.  Fernando's case is another good example.  It just seems more
> logical (not to mention courteous).  I know many people with disabilities
> who would also find it easier instead of being directed to a version they
> may not understand and then having to "click around" to try to ascertain the
> availability of a translation or to find a version in their language.
> 
> 

You are right and my answer may have been a bit too hasty. Sorry about that. Indeed, my 
reaction was primarily aimed (and I stand by my opinion in that respect) at the 
translations of *official recommendations*, and the references to other recommendations. 
The case you mention becomes a borderline and you are right: for those cases having the 
local language link makes sense. As I responded to Fernando in another mail: if the links 
refer to the same group of documents, possible translated by the same set of people, it is 
indeed a better solution. If the referenced translation just exists but has been made by 
somebody else, maybe a better policy is to add both links: the local language one and the 
link to the original, English version. It probably becomes a case-by-case basis issue.

> 
> Then maybe it would be pertinent for W3C to consider hosting the
> translations. Which brings me to another point about policies relating to
> the status of these translations.  It would seem to me that it would be a
> good idea to consider giving these translations a more "official" status
> (implying that there would have to be some sort of formal mechanism for
> approving them) if W3C is truly serious about I18N.
> 
> 

Absolutely. And... we are working on this! The goal is to have a separate category of 
translations, that have to go through some more rigorous check by the community, but which 
would then be stored on our site and would thereby gain a more 'official' status. We are 
working and checking the details of such a policy and we hope to make it public within a 
few weeks. Note that the current style of translations would also remain, it will be the 
choice of the translators or the institutions behind them to decide whether they want to 
go through the extra steps to 'officialize' these translations.

Thanks for all your remarks

Ivan

> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Catherine Roy
> www.w3qc.org
> www.communautique.qc.ca
> http://perso.b2b2c.ca/zara
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/