Re: Multi-language to be or not to be

Alexey Borzov a écrit :
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I have to say "I told you so".   When the existing translation scheme 
>> was built two+ years ago, I pointed out that it was cumbersome, 
>> confusing and inaccessable and predicted that none of our non-English 
>> communities would use it.
> 
> The main problem as "I told you back then" is that a person willing to 
> contribute to the website has to jump through a lot of hoops. As you 
> probably noticed, potential translators who participated in this thread 
> had no clue about the possibility of website translation. To know about 
> that requires either searching the archives of pgsql-www or looking at 
> pgweb module on gborg (which is itself "deprecated" for quite a bit of 
> time).
> 
> So to learn about translation infrastructure one essentially has to 
> already know about translation infrastructure.
> 

+1

>> So, my vote is that whether or not we have *an* translation 
>> infrastructure, the current incomplete and non-standard infrastructure 
>> be junked.  It's never going to be used in its current form.
> 
> Well, even if you create a complete and standard infrastructure you'll 
> still need to translate at least
> 1) Script messages and words from common templates. This can be done now 
> through complete and standard gettext.
> 2) Content stored in database (news and such). There is an interface for 
> this now, though it may require polishing (no one can say for sure, 
> 'cause no one actually *used* that).
> 
> The only real problem IMO is "static" pages containing a lot of text and 
> stored in CVS currently. It wasn't the brightest idea back then and they 
> probably belong in the database, alongside all other stuff.
> 

+1


-- 
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/     http://lfs.traduc.org/     http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->