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
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.