You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr> on 2016/04/17 07:20:20 UTC
Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Hi docs@,
a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a web
based application in order to translate our documentation.
The proposal was about Transifex [2].
Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
itself: https://translate.apache.org/
It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
At least, it can use .po files.
Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
The workflow would be:
main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate updated
XML files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we actually do
The pros:
- IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
- trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in
the same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
- using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of
the text itself
- translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
people
- easy access to translation statistic
- svn integration
The cons:
- the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is
working on
- new tools and new intermediate file format
- more complex doc generation process
Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish
which sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome Luis),
everything else is more or less dead.
So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
process:
- Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
Pros, Cons...
- Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
translation changes?
- Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would be
a win?
Any thought?
CJ
[1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
[2] http://www.transifex.com
[3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 18/04/2016 14:56, Lucien Gentis a écrit :
>
>
> Le 18/04/2016 13:32, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>> Converting the docs to use po files would be an enormous undertaking.
>> So while I'm not opposed to it, per se, I'd have a number of questions.
>
> I think Christophe didn't tell about converting the docs to .po files,
> but only make a working copy of an XML file to translate, convert it
> to .po, translate it, convert it again to XML and commit the result.
> Am I right ?
Yes that's it.
I'll try in the coming days to provide an example of what these .po
could look like.
The workflow could be something like:
http://po4a.alioth.debian.org/man/man7/po4a.7.php#lbAK
CJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Luis Gil <lj...@googlemail.com>.
Hello
I think the modification should be included in translation.mdtext?
Regards
El mié., 20 de abril de 2016 10:18, Lucien Gentis <
lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr> escribió:
>
>
> Le 20/04/2016 02:16, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2016 08:57, "Lucien Gentis" <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As a beginning, how about adding an item "Translation" in "Want to
> contribute to the Apache HTTP Server?" on http://httpd.apache.org/ ?
> > This item could contain a call not only for translators , but also for
> Reviewers of the doc that "has not been reviewed" (as proposed below)
>
> That document is here:
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/translations.html
>
> Yes, it can be greatly improved.
>
> >
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Luis Gil has begun to improve this part of the documentation in his bug
> report :
>
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
>
> So I go on there
>
> --
> Lucien GENTIS
> UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE - ESPE
> Centre de Ressources Informatiques
> 5, Rue Paul Richard
> C.O. 3 - MAXEVILLE
> 54528 LAXOU-CEDEX
>
> Tél. 03 72 74 13 28
> Email : lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr
>
> --
Luis J.G
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>.
Le 20/04/2016 02:16, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2016 08:57, "Lucien Gentis" <lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr
> <ma...@univ-lorraine.fr>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As a beginning, how about adding an item "Translation" in "Want to
> contribute to the Apache HTTP Server?" on http://httpd.apache.org/ ?
> > This item could contain a call not only for translators , but also
> for Reviewers of the doc that "has not been reviewed" (as proposed below)
>
> That document is here:
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/translations.html
>
> Yes, it can be greatly improved.
>
> >
>
I agree.
Luis Gil has begun to improve this part of the documentation in his bug
report :
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
So I go on there
--
Lucien GENTIS
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE - ESPE
Centre de Ressources Informatiques
5, Rue Paul Richard
C.O. 3 - MAXEVILLE
54528 LAXOU-CEDEX
Tél. 03 72 74 13 28
Email : lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Apr 18, 2016 08:57, "Lucien Gentis" <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>
wrote:
>
>
>
> As a beginning, how about adding an item "Translation" in "Want to
contribute to the Apache HTTP Server?" on http://httpd.apache.org/ ?
> This item could contain a call not only for translators , but also for
Reviewers of the doc that "has not been reviewed" (as proposed below)
That document is here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/translations.html
Yes, it can be greatly improved.
>
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>.
Le 18/04/2016 13:32, Rich Bowen a écrit :
> Converting the docs to use po files would be an enormous undertaking.
> So while I'm not opposed to it, per se, I'd have a number of questions.
I think Christophe didn't tell about converting the docs to .po files,
but only make a working copy of an XML file to translate, convert it to
.po, translate it, convert it again to XML and commit the result.
Am I right ?
>
> * Who is going to do the work?
> * Will we end up with the same richness of formatting that is
> currently available to us in the docbook format?
>
> I have a number of times looked at what it would take to convert the
> docs to markdown or asciidoc, and have always ended up deciding that
> we'll lose too much in the conversion.
>
> However, I certainly wouldn't *oppose* such a change if there was
> someone willing to do all of the work.
>
> As for dead translations ... yeah, this is a problem. We used to have
> very active translators in a few areas, but they have almost all gone
> away, and I don't know how to attract new translators.
As a beginning, how about adding an item "Translation" in "Want to
contribute to the Apache HTTP Server?" on http://httpd.apache.org/ ?
This item could contain a call not only for translators , but also for
Reviewers of the doc that "has not been reviewed" (as proposed below)
> I agree that our workflow is too complicated, and this has resulted in
> some translator interest being turned away because their work never
> got committed.
Personnally, I don't feel the workflow too complicated, it only has to
be explained in a tuto.
Well said translation update can take several hours each week while
workflow treatement only takes ten minutes.
> I think that having reviews is important, but perhaps having a "has
> not been reviewed" indicator would be an adequate half-way.
>
> --Rich
>
> On 04/17/2016 01:20 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Hi docs@,
>>
>> a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a web
>> based application in order to translate our documentation.
>> The proposal was about Transifex [2].
>>
>> Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
>> itself: https://translate.apache.org/
>> It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
>>
>> I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
>> At least, it can use .po files.
>> Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
>> files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
>> I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
>>
>> The workflow would be:
>> main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
>> generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate updated
>> XML files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we actually do
>>
>>
>> The pros:
>> - IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
>> - trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in
>> the same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
>> - using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
>> links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of
>> the text itself
>> - translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
>> people
>> - easy access to translation statistic
>> - svn integration
>>
>> The cons:
>> - the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is
>> working on
>> - new tools and new intermediate file format
>> - more complex doc generation process
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
>> Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish
>> which sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome Luis),
>> everything else is more or less dead.
>> So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
>> process:
>> - Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
>> Pros, Cons...
>> - Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
>> translation changes?
>> - Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would be
>> a win?
>> Any thought?
>>
>>
>> CJ
>>
>>
>> [1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
>> [2] http://www.transifex.com
>> [3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
Lucien GENTIS
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE - ESPE
Centre de Ressources Informatiques
5, Rue Paul Richard
C.O. 3 - MAXEVILLE
54528 LAXOU-CEDEX
Tél. 03 72 74 13 28
Email : lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Converting the docs to use po files would be an enormous undertaking. So
while I'm not opposed to it, per se, I'd have a number of questions.
* Who is going to do the work?
* Will we end up with the same richness of formatting that is currently
available to us in the docbook format?
I have a number of times looked at what it would take to convert the
docs to markdown or asciidoc, and have always ended up deciding that
we'll lose too much in the conversion.
However, I certainly wouldn't *oppose* such a change if there was
someone willing to do all of the work.
As for dead translations ... yeah, this is a problem. We used to have
very active translators in a few areas, but they have almost all gone
away, and I don't know how to attract new translators. I agree that our
workflow is too complicated, and this has resulted in some translator
interest being turned away because their work never got committed. I
think that having reviews is important, but perhaps having a "has not
been reviewed" indicator would be an adequate half-way.
--Rich
On 04/17/2016 01:20 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Hi docs@,
>
> a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a web
> based application in order to translate our documentation.
> The proposal was about Transifex [2].
>
> Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
> itself: https://translate.apache.org/
> It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
>
> I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
> At least, it can use .po files.
> Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
> files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
> I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
>
> The workflow would be:
> main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
> generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate updated
> XML files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we actually do
>
>
> The pros:
> - IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
> - trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in
> the same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
> - using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
> links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of
> the text itself
> - translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
> people
> - easy access to translation statistic
> - svn integration
>
> The cons:
> - the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is
> working on
> - new tools and new intermediate file format
> - more complex doc generation process
>
>
> Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
> Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish
> which sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome Luis),
> everything else is more or less dead.
> So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
>
>
>
> We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
> process:
> - Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
> Pros, Cons...
> - Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
> translation changes?
> - Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would be
> a win?
> Any thought?
>
>
> CJ
>
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
> [2] http://www.transifex.com
> [3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>.
Le 17/04/2016 07:20, Marion & Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
> Hi docs@,
Hi
>
> a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a
> web based application in order to translate our documentation.
> The proposal was about Transifex [2].
>
> Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
> itself: https://translate.apache.org/
> It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
>
> I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
> At least, it can use .po files.
> Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
> files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
> I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
>
> The workflow would be:
> main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
> generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate
> updated XML files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we
> actually do
>
>
> The pros:
> - IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
> - trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in
> the same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
> - using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
> links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of
> the text itself
> - translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
> people
> - easy access to translation statistic
> - svn integration
>
> The cons:
> - the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is
> working on
> - new tools and new intermediate file format
> - more complex doc generation process
>
>
> Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
> Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish
> which sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome
> Luis), everything else is more or less dead.
> So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
>
>
>
> We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
> process:
> - Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
> Pros, Cons...
Using XML files for the translation is convenient for me ;
The pros : translator has a global view of the file he is working on,
tools for building the doc are present and operational
The cons : don't find any
> - Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
> translation changes?
I don't know how .po files would help to keep track of translation changes.
I think this format works better for little sentences like httpd error
messages ; it's not plain text, there are brackets, and if you need
several lines for a message to translate, you get into problems.
Last, as said above, you have not a global view of the file you are
working on ; it could be problematic when you need to see the context of
the sentence you have to translate in order to understand it.
PS : as I understand, english source doc stay in XML format ; so these
files have to be converted to .po
If it is the case, that wouldn't facilitate comparisons between english
and translated files.
> - Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would
> be a win?
A web based interface is useful for translation status global sight :
Takashi's status page
http://home.apache.org/~takashi/translation-status/ is fully appropriate
for that
> Any thought?
Perhaps I'm too old to feel a need of change :-)
But I think our translation system is convenient enough
On the other hand , Luis has made an effort to make info more clear for
new translators ; may be we must go further and write a translation
tutorial including svn usage, new files translation and translation
update, repos checkout, scripting for english source XML files change
detection, ...?
>
>
> CJ
>
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
> [2] http://www.transifex.com
> [3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
--
Lucien GENTIS
UNIVERSITE DE LORRAINE - ESPE
Centre de Ressources Informatiques
5, Rue Paul Richard
C.O. 3 - MAXEVILLE
54528 LAXOU-CEDEX
Tél. 03 72 74 13 28
Email : lucien.gentis@univ-lorraine.fr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Doc translation: what about a new workflow?
Posted by Luis Gil <lj...@googlemail.com>.
Hello
Marion & Christophe:
Thank you on the first hand.
Linkedin: https://linkd.in/Ljjt8L
Twitter : https://twitter.com/luigy_tspg
On 17 April 2016 at 07:20,
Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi docs@,
>
> a few weeks ago someone, a discussion [1] has started about using a web
based application in order to translate our documentation.
> The proposal was about Transifex [2].
>
> Another tool that looks similar is provided by the Apache Foundation
itself: https://translate.apache.org/
> It works with Pootle. (see [3] which is the version used on t.a.o)
>
> I don't know yet if our doc format is convenient for it.
> At least, it can use .po files.
> Tools exist to convert docbook (more or less our doc format) to .po
files, handle translation and generate back some docbook document.
> I have already used something called 'po4a' for such a process.
>
> The workflow would be:
> main documentation in XML files --> generate/manage pot file -->
generate/manage po files --> translate using t.a.o --> generate updated XML
files for each languages --> generate html/pdf... as we actually do
>
>
> The pros:
> - IMHO, following changes with po files is easier for translators
> - trunk/2.4.x are mainly the same files. They could be merged in the
same po files to avoid duplication of translation effort
> - using po files keeps the document structure itself (formatting,
links, ...). So the translator only has to focus on the translation of the
text itself
> - translating is easier and can be shared easily between different
people
> - easy access to translation statistic
> - svn integration
>
> The cons:
> - the translator doesn't have a global view of the file he is working
on
> - new tools and new intermediate file format
> - more complex doc generation process
>
>
> Anyway, I think that our translation workflow is too complex.
> Apart from the French translation (huge thanks, Lucien) and Spanish which
sees some interest and looks promising (Thanks and welcome Luis),
everything else is more or less dead.
> So anything that ease access to new translators is a win.
>
>
>
> We would like to have your feedback about the actual doc translation
process:
> - Do you think that using XML files for the translation is convenient?
Pros, Cons...
> - Do you think that using .po files would help to keep track of
translation changes?
> - Do you think that using a web based interface for translation would be
a win?
> Any thought?
>
>
> CJ
>
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=145716544900002&r=1&w=2
> [2] http://www.transifex.com
> [3] http://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/pootle/en/stable-2.5.1/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
On the other hand, I want to share my opinion over this.
The way we are translating things now @httpd looks good, i mean the xml
files (for me was easy to follow up the format etc) and the build process
is totally automated ( o.f.c. we would need to update stuff).
But the main thing for keeping track and getting things going on the
translation, (for non committers its hard).
Files in the mailing list sometimes get lost, on the threads.
So talking about what you suggest, Transifex its good, but how we will
integrate the *.po files and make the Jenkins or what ever (i actually know
how we build the web, just when we do the ./build ) anyway we should not
discard this new stuff, at least if it will make our workflow easy and
faster.
If we are integrating Pootle, i'm not sure if you need to learn too python
(Django), i have been using the framework and its very flexible and it can
i think integrarte with what we are doing, but the thing is, we need to
create the Django backend and structure for the web, and... well i'm not
sure how much time we will need on this (correct me if i'm wrong)
so resuming i see the following:
1. Transifex will be a pain in the ass for ASF because the build process
i guess.
2. Pootle it could be the best way if we would like to move forwards, in
the way Django works.
3. We will need to update the backend (i guess) to integrate this tools,
maybe use Jenkins or other automate deploy software.
Best regards.
Luis Gil de Bernabé.
PD: if at any time will this be going to be any option, i would be pleased
to help on the back-end work ;)
--
Luis J.G