Le 2010-10-20 11:22, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Sophie Gautier wrote:
Just to point that we need to handle i18n and l10n easily also, this
is important to think this multilanguage way till the beginning.
Then I'll have to ask again what you mean by this!
1) Having translatable pages (meaning: an English about page at
http://www.documentfoundation.org/about.html and its French translation
at http://www.documentfoundation.org/about.fr.html or equivalent)
2) Having localized websites, with independent structure but same login
(similar to how CollabNet is working now for OpenOffice.org)
3) Having both (not acceptable from my point of view, too confusing)
Work on a multilingual site cannot start before deciding on this.
Everybody who's been around for a few years in OpenOffice.org knows pros
and cons, but to summarize them:
- Option 1 makes it easier to monitor page changes, since you have the
"English version" and the "French version" of a page linked in the
system, and you can compare them easily.
- Option 2 gives N-L teams more flexibility, since they decide how to
structure their own site (from the diversity between N-L sites, I'd say
this is rather appreciated now). So if the French team wants an About
page, it will create it in their site structure; though, checking if it
is up-to-date with respect to the English version must be done
- Option 3 to me is just problematic, since you don't know where to put
the French "About" page: in the global site as translation of the
English "About" or in the French site?
If I had to maintain the Italian section of the site, I would go for
Option 2: Italian pages would be the ones the Italian community feels
relevant for them, which can be different or in a different order than
the global (English?) ones.
A lot of these options would have to take into consideration SC website
philosophy. Do the SC members want a unified look and structure to the
various sub-sections of the main English website; do they consider the
localized versions as autonomous as to have their own website structure.
The SC members would have to pronounce themselves on these points.
As a user, if find it extremely useful if the structure follows that of
#1. If you are on the English site at:
http://www.documentfoundation.org/about.html and seek out its Italian
translated page, then you seek out the
http://www.documentfoundation.org/about.it.html or then if you seek or
the French translated page, then you seek out
http://www.documentfoundation.org/about.fr.html. And so on for any other
page. This allows for a very efficient mechanical structure. However, as
you alluded, the structure may not represent the flavour/character of
the localized pages. They merely represent the translation of the main
English site. However, as a user, this structure makes is quite easy to
navigate from one localized version to another. In this case the SC
would hold a firm grip on the structuring of the website.
#2 Differs in that the localized section of the site is built by the
community and would most reflect the flavour/character of its members.
So the pages would not necessarily be present at the same location and
some pages may not even be present depending on the communities. In this
case, the SC would hold very loose grip on the structuring of teh
website and the community would have greater participation in the
structuring of the localized website.
So, there are 2 things to consider:
1. Does the SC wish #1 or the #2 option?
2. Can either Silverstripe and Drupal support either of these scenarios.
Opinions on #2 is the one that is really important for this thread.
Could the Drupal and Silverstripe give us their opinion on this? Could
this scenario be supported by either package?
E-mail to email@example.com for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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