Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Proposal: Documentation workflow and cooperation between NL teams

Michael Wheatland a écrit :
> Hi David et al,
> As I had promised, it is Boxing day, and my idea has been developed
> into something more than just a scribble on a scrap of paper.
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibreOffice_documentation_workflow_proposal.odp
>
> The idea is to promote structured coordination between documentation
> language teams to allow concepts and content to flow from one language
> to another without restricting how the concept is implemented in any
> NL document.
> I have built the idea from the documentation workflow that Jean
> proposed we use from the OOoAuthors site, including an editing and
> review process for every proposed change regardless of language.
>
> I am not sure what direction language teams have taken regarding
> documentation and if this proposal fits in with any existing plans,
> could someone comment on this?
>
> I would appreciate feedback to the open questions at the end of the
> document, if you have a constructive opinion, I am more than happy to
> adapt the approach if something is more appropriate / better outcome.
>
> Thanks all for the positive input and support so far with the
> Documentation Team.
> Michael Wheatland

The concept of "content changes" vs. "language changes" is very useful. 
 (I would favour saying "language-specific" to avoid confusion.)

One problem with using a numbering system for content changes, is that 
many changes will be redundant and/or contradictory, or not useful in 
certain contexts.
So if we do versioning of content changes, there should be a means for 
each language group to tag a particular change :
- New
- Applied/committed
- In process/assigned
- Ignored if not considered useful
- Pending if undecided

As well, it would be useful to have the date of creation, and creating 
language group.

Since version numbers would supposedly be created when the content 
change is committed, the "mini-release" would not be known at that time.

Language groups not wanting to translate by content change need only 
translate by documentation modules of some other language.
Thus I don't think that the content change approach should be forced on 
any language group.
Commit controls could still be used for groups translating by 
documentation modules.

Although I do agree that for language groups with enough translators, 
documentation would be more up to date and more uniform with the content 
change approach.

As for implementation, language groups that choose to translate by 
module could possibly be well served by a wiki or mailing list.
Which would not work well with the content change approach.

The reality is that for many languages with few translators, there will 
be only those "less skilled" in technical writing.  Those translators 
would problably do much better translating by documentation module, 
where they would more easily see everything in context.  So we should 
focus on helping such groups, and not try to block them.

As far as existing documentation goes, we should try to ensure it is 
structured around the modules / menu system / functions of LibreOffice.
(This seems to be the case for French documentation.)
As long as the documentation is structured in this way, it seems better 
to give free reign to translation groups.
In other words, don't try to enforce sentence-by-sentence translation.
We risk to find better ways to explain/document LibreOffice.

If we create a reference structure based on LibreOffice functionality, 
and migrate this structure into existing documentation, we should end up 
with a system that lets us easily compare the documentation of any 2 
languages.
Any documentation that doesn't fit into the reference structure could 
lead to modifying the structure, if found to be an oversight.

(Don't know how we should treat such documentation in comparisons, etc.)

I think we should start with existing documentation and evolve.

As far as synchonising content between languages, that should happen 
naturally once the reference structure is integrated into the language 
version, and comparison tools are available.

As mentioned above, I favour using a documentation structure based on 
LibreOffice modules and menus/functions, which will naturally lead to 
common sections, and headings should correspond.
However I would leave it to the language groups to decide how to present 
each section.  It would be far easier to do a more or less direct 
translation, but if the group felt that there was a better way to 
document, they should be free to do so.
This can lead to migrating better documentation to other languages.

A professional look can be achieved by a non-obligatory style guide.

A suggested standard look could be useful, but I wouldn't make it a 
requirement.  There could be good historical/cultural reasons to vary 
for a particular language.

my 2 cents :)
André

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***