[publican-list] Publican 1.0 nearly here
r.landmann at redhat.com
Mon Nov 2 03:49:10 UTC 2009
On 11/02/2009 10:57 AM, Miloš Komarčević wrote:
> The confusion
> started when sr at latin started showing up in new publicanized docs out
> of our control.
I'll take the blame for that -- that was due to my attempt to make sure
that the files displayed cleanly in Transifex
> On a side note, I have also noticed that Transifex exhibits some
> strange "memory" behavior and doesn't always reflect the true state of
> the upstream repo when a file is removed.
Indeed; for now anyway, the solution is to ask one of the Transifex team
to reset that project.
> Agreed for docs, but don't know if moving UI stuff away from glibc's
> sr at latin is a good idea atm.
Sorry -- I should have been more explicit -- everything I've been
talking about applies only to docs; the BCP47 codes are only relevant to
XML. It would be crazy to use these codes for UI stuff :)
> From what I hear, Transifex 0.7 will
> support both ways just fine.
Yes, it will.
Note too that when Transifex 0.7 arrives, docs translators will be
working directly with the individual PO files that Publican generates
for each XML file in the book, so "sr-Latn-RS" will be the name of a
/directory/, not a PO file.
> We would probably like to keep
> the Cyrillic default preference, as there is consensus with other L10n
> teams such as Gnome, KDE and OOo on this as well. (Curiously enough,
> Google pages also default to Cyrillic script when you set up your
> browser for sr only.)
Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering whether, by itself, sr-RS is truly
a valid language tag in XML? We need to read the relevant specifications
again more closely.
> Thanks again for taking an interest in this, I hope other languages
> using multiple scripts will benefit from these discussions as well in
> the long run.
Indeed; and thanks for your patience and understanding -- we're getting
there! :) For now, we just need to wait for our tools to catch up!!
More information about the trans