Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <address@hidden> skribis:

> On 01/10/2014 03:12 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
>  >>
>  >> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
>  >> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
>  >>
>  >> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
>  >> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
>  >> address@hidden if that team doesn't maintain blurb
>  >> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
>  >> what strings are blurbs.
>  >
>  > Sounds good.
>  >
>  > What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?
>
> Discuss with address@hidden, I think; they may add
> their own adjustments to the procedure before actually announcing it
> to the translators.

OK, will do (once the remaining issue is solved.)

>  >> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
>  >> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
>  >> the reverse conversion seems missing.
>  >
>  > Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
>  > the www ones have something like this at the end:
>  >
>  >   <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>
>  >
>  > Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
>  > strings?
>
> But they are translatable; what may make sense is separating them
> to their own msgids (also, "This package is looking for a maintainer.").
>
> GNUN has a means to do it when the strings can't come, say, in separate
> paragraphs, <span class="gnun-split"></span>, like on the home page [0],
> so this could be implemented like in the attachment.

Excellent.

> Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
> different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
> I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
> converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
> conversion would be necessary.

That would be possible.  However, we synchronize the descriptions in our
source files directly with pkgblurbs.txt, which is *not* HTML.

So, should pkgblurbs.txt be changed to use HTML markup, should we keep
using it but implement the same markup-inference trick, or should we use
another source, or...?

It seems to me that the ideal would be to have (HTML) markup in the
authoritative source (pkgblurbs.txt).  Then users could choose whether
to keep/convert/discard that markup.  I believe it’s more flexible and
robust than trying to infer markup from plain text like gm-generate.pl
currently does.

WDYT?

Thanks for your help!

Ludo’.