Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:12:33 +0000 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Udo Erdelhoff <ue@nathan.ruhr.de> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Translators: Need feedback on FAQ reorganization Message-ID: <20010314131233.C6138@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <20010313231654.G83336@nathan.ruhr.de>; from ue@nathan.ruhr.de on Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:16:54PM %2B0100 References: <20010311125040.E31751@holly.calldei.com> <20010312003518.A77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010312093709.B3114@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010312212209.G77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010312214725.B74204@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010313002953.I77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010313124524.B2130@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010313231654.G83336@nathan.ruhr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IpbVkmxF4tDyP/Kb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:16:54PM +0100, Udo Erdelhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:45:24PM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > > > [commit bit for Robert, Dirk and me?]
> > >=20
> > > I can't speak for Dirk and Robert. I don't care either way.
> >=20
> > Would it make your life easier?
>=20
> Right now, I translate the entries and tell Alex "venture forth, my brave
> committer and inflict them on freefall". With the bit, I would just put
> them there myself. On the other hand, Alex would probably be delighted to
> tell me "Go and do it yourself".
Well, it makes both your lives easier then. A bonus.
> > I notice a couple of infrastructure-like PRs from you in the PR databas=
e,
> > which you could do.
>=20
> Yes, I was idealistic (or, in hindsight, stupid) enough to spend lots of
> time on "infrastructure-like" (nice phrase) and other work for the FDP. T=
he
> results of that work do not encourage me to do it again. Do the words
> "excuse me for trying to help, I won't do it again" ring any bells?
No. Certainly not based on the examination of the PR database I've just
done. I see 23 PRs submitted by you, of which 22 have been closed, only
one or two of which generated any discussion -- in all honesty, I should
have spotted this sooner and asked you to become a committer.
> > As far as I can tell, the only thing we've disagreed on is
> > how to handle the bibliographic stuff.
>=20
> I've spend too much time talking to a wall and working for the trash can.
The sequence of events was:
1. You note <!-- br --> in the FAQ, and ask what its for.
The message ID was <20010106211512.L64806@nathan.ruhr.de> if anyone
wants to dig this thread out of the archives.
2. I reply, explaining where it came from.
3. You reply, saying that you've fixed this in the book listing in the
German version of the FAQ, and do I want an adaptation for the English
version.
4. I replied that all but the first set can be removed, they serve no
purpose. The first set, intended to format bilbiographic information,
are more tricky. I said I'd prefer the markup to be the same across
all translations, and that if no one else did it, I'd fix the English
docs to use DocBook bibliographic markup when I had time.
=20
5. You reply, again offering the patches you developed for the German
version. You point out what you think are DocBook errors when includi=
ng
bibliographic information 'inline' in the document. You asked if I
thought the solution was unacceptable, and if so, why.
=20
6. I reply, agreeing with your assessment about the difficulties of=20
including all the bibliographic information inline, and include a
patch which moves the bulk of the bibliographic information to a
bibliographic section, while still including a link to it within the
main body of the document. I asked for comments as to its suitability,
as it's, IMHO, more in keeping with the DocBook formatting ethos than
using tables to format non-tabular data.
7. You send me a 2 line e-mail saying "your answer (or lack thereof) has
been understood. Please excuse me for having an independent idea."
8. I reply saying "Huh? I don't follow."
There is no reply.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the quick fix of using a table
for non-tabular data is better than trying to use the markup facilities
that are provided by DocBook to markup bibliographic data.
I'm sorry if you see this as "talking to a wall" but after the effort we
went through to convert to DocBook, I'm not overly enthusiastic for
using markup just because it gives formatted output that 'looks right'.
I'd rather use the correct markup, and fix the stylesheets as necessary.
N
--=20
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/
FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/
--- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 ---
--IpbVkmxF4tDyP/Kb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjqvbkAACgkQk6gHZCw343XQLQCdF0aCC2hGI3AjNBn7RYrRgmJw
eaMAnRIQ5Te9iuEmtcd0zoFaz6h6Fjk9
=gCAq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--IpbVkmxF4tDyP/Kb--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010314131233.C6138>