You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/04 00:59:57 UTC
[DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language string
identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
"other.html" page, which is in English.
Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back in
the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one of
the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of course,
they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they are
now in some respects.
Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or not.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jürgen Lange <jl...@juergen-lange.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Kay,
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> This is a good idea.
> >>
> >> Jürgen
> >>
> >> Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
> >>>
> >>> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
> >>> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
> >>> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language
> string
> >>> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on
> the
> >>> "other.html" page, which is in English.
> >>>
> >>> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them
> back
> >>> in
> >>> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through
> one of
> >>> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
> >>> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks
> will
> >>> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of
> course,
> >>> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they
> >>> are
> >>> now in some respects.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or
> not.
>
> Some NL sites have DLs, but most do not. Rob has listed the few that do
> many of which do have AOO versions.
>
My goal at this point, given everyone's time considerations, is to have
things working as closely as they were to the former DL scenario. In the
past NL sites could choose where DLs for their language would be located --
on the mirror site or some alternate location. I think ALL the languages in
the languages.js list have something in the way of a DL but really some may
be quite old -- maybe even older than 3.0. Reactivating ALL the languages
that existed before for this DL, and letting users go to that site, is no
more harmful than what's been done in the past. I agree it is NOT
optimal...but, given the timeframe we're operating in right now, I don't
think adding something else to deal with them is optimal.
>
> If none of the user's langs are available then there are several choices.
>
> (1) other.html. Their version isn't there. If they want AOO 3.4 in another
> language fine. Is that the first choice?
>
Ok, Marcus has coded this up...you can see it at:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html
So, for languages for which we have NO 3.4.0, the links go to valid distros
for 3.3.0. However, there is no indication, generally or specifically that
a language will not get 3.4.0. This could pretty easily be added generally
at the top of the page, but specifically., by some means, doubtful at this
time.
>
> (2) legacy/index.html. WIll this work if the most recent legacy is what
> they are looking for?
>
I think we're good with the "new" other.html
>
> If the language is missing from 3.4, I think it makes sense to write a
> special non-button text warning above that offers the legacy.
>
> "We are sorry but your language, XXXX, is not yet available in the current
> version. Click the <Legacy Button> to locate a version of OpenOffice.org
> 3.3 or earlier in your language."
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, and as Marcus just left ALL the languages in the new "other" page,
> > this would more or less make things consistent. OK, will do.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> > And life has a funny way of helping you out
> > Helping you out."
> > -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On May 4, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jürgen Lange <jl...@juergen-lange.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello Kay,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This is a good idea.
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>> Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
>>>
>>> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
>>> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
>>> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language string
>>> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
>>> "other.html" page, which is in English.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back
>>> in
>>> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one of
>>> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
>>> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
>>> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of course,
>>> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they
>>> are
>>> now in some respects.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or not.
Some NL sites have DLs, but most do not. Rob has listed the few that do many of which do have AOO versions.
If none of the user's langs are available then there are several choices.
(1) other.html. Their version isn't there. If they want AOO 3.4 in another language fine. Is that the first choice?
(2) legacy/index.html. WIll this work if the most recent legacy is what they are looking for?
If the language is missing from 3.4, I think it makes sense to write a special non-button text warning above that offers the legacy.
"We are sorry but your language, XXXX, is not yet available in the current version. Click the <Legacy Button> to locate a version of OpenOffice.org 3.3 or earlier in your language."
Regards,
Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and as Marcus just left ALL the languages in the new "other" page,
> this would more or less make things consistent. OK, will do.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> And life has a funny way of helping you out
> Helping you out."
> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 05/04/2012 06:00 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jürgen Lange<jl...@juergen-lange.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Kay,
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> This is a good idea.
>>>
>>> Jürgen
>>>
>>> Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>
>>> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
>>>> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
>>>> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language
>>>> string
>>>> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
>>>> "other.html" page, which is in English.
>>>>
>>>> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back
>>>> in
>>>> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one
>>>> of
>>>> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
>>>> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
>>>> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of
>>>> course,
>>>> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they
>>>> are
>>>> now in some respects.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>
> When I remember correct the "languages.js" file has some flags to send the
> user with a specific language to an alternative webpage (if the former NL
> community wanted to have this behavior). Mostly it was a webpage somewhere
> on the respective NL webpage.
>
yes, that's right -- that's what I'm talking about...
>
> (To be more specific, the text in the green download box will then change
> and the underlying link will change.)
>
> So, we can leave all not supported languages and point them to the
> "other.html". To point them to the respective NL webpage doesn't make sense
> as it's quite sure that the content is outdated and therefore not really
> helpful.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> Yes, and as Marcus just left ALL the languages in the new "other" page,
>>>
>> this would more or less make things consistent. OK, will do.
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 05/04/2012 06:00 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jürgen Lange<jl...@juergen-lange.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello Kay,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This is a good idea.
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>> Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
>>>
>>> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
>>> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
>>> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language string
>>> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
>>> "other.html" page, which is in English.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back
>>> in
>>> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one of
>>> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
>>> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
>>> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of course,
>>> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they
>>> are
>>> now in some respects.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or not.
When I remember correct the "languages.js" file has some flags to send
the user with a specific language to an alternative webpage (if the
former NL community wanted to have this behavior). Mostly it was a
webpage somewhere on the respective NL webpage.
(To be more specific, the text in the green download box will then
change and the underlying link will change.)
So, we can leave all not supported languages and point them to the
"other.html". To point them to the respective NL webpage doesn't make
sense as it's quite sure that the content is outdated and therefore not
really helpful.
Marcus
>> Yes, and as Marcus just left ALL the languages in the new "other" page,
> this would more or less make things consistent. OK, will do.
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jürgen Lange <jl...@juergen-lange.de> wrote:
> Hello Kay,
>
> +1
>
> This is a good idea.
>
> Jürgen
>
> Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
>>
>> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
>> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
>> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language string
>> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
>> "other.html" page, which is in English.
>>
>> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back
>> in
>> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one of
>> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
>> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
>> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of course,
>> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they
>> are
>> now in some respects.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or not.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, and as Marcus just left ALL the languages in the new "other" page,
this would more or less make things consistent. OK, will do.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: [DL] question concerning NL downloads...or not
Posted by Jürgen Lange <jl...@juergen-lange.de>.
Hello Kay,
+1
This is a good idea.
Jürgen
Am 04.05.2012 00:59, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> Just a quick philosophical questions for the upcoming 3.4 download.
>
> Right now, as I relayed in a previous message, I commented out ALL the
> language entries for which we have do not have packs available on our
> Apache mirror setup. What this means is that folks with a language string
> identifier which we are no longer supporting will probably end up on the
> "other.html" page, which is in English.
>
> Another option would be to setup the language array by placing them back in
> the process, and, instead of commenting them out, indicate through one of
> the flags already available that the release for the language is NOT
> available on the mirror system, as many of them were already. Folks will
> then be sent back to their current native language site. There, of course,
> they will not find an update, but they won't be any worse off than they are
> now in some respects.
>
> Any thoughts on this? Is the latter alternative more desirable -- or not.
>
>