[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS


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
manually.
- 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.

Regards,
Andrea.



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?

Marc


--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org 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

Follow-Ups:
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSAndrea Pescetti <pescetti@openoffice.org>
References:
[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS"Andre Schnabel" <Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSAndrea Pescetti <pescetti@openoffice.org>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS"Andre Schnabel" <Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSSophie Gautier <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSAndrea Pescetti <pescetti@openoffice.org>
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.