Re: @dircategory (Re: Translating Emacs manuals is of strategic importance)

[Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@traductaire-libre.org>]

> On Jan 6, 2024, at 20:38, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> 1. I read a manual in English, there is a link with a node in English,
>> it directs to the other English manual.
>> 
>> It’s the expected behaviour.
>> 
>> 2. I read a manual in French, there is a link with a node in English,
>> it directs to the other English manual.
>> 
>> If the other manual exists in French, it is not the proper behaviour.

I forgot. If I understand texinfo properly, if the manual name is 
translated (and if the manual is translated) it is enough that the node 
name is the same as in the target manual, so either both untranslated, 
or both translated. So here, the node name only being left in English 
is not so relevant. What matters most is whether the manual name is 
translated or not. Am I correct?

>> 3. I read a manual in French, there is a link with a node in French, it
>> directs to the other French manual.
>> 
>> If the other manual exists in French, it is the proper behaviour.
>> 
>> If it does not, we should have an error message that informs the reader
>> that the manual is not translated.
> 
> I think case 3 should fall back to the English manual instead of
> erroring out.  Having a manual without translation to an arbitrary
> language will be the usual case for quite some time, so an error
> message sounds like a harsh punishment to me.

Sure, but the situation where that would happen is indeed when there 
are too few translated manuals to create a “monolingual ecosystem” 
where manuals all link to each other.

Supposedly, the user has installed the manual independently and knows 
that there will be limitations. Just like all web sites have default 404 
pages and some have redirection, the error does not have to read like 
a punishment.

And that can be a first solution before something more elaborate is 
implemented. But indeed, that depends on how the TexInfo project wants 
to solve the issue.

Regarding the translation process, it seems like there are 2 steps here.

- The first is the translator who is conscious of the external nodes 
  limitations and keeps all the external nodes in English.

- The second is preparing the ground to link to her translation by 
  modifying external nodes in manuals that direct to it.

Little by little, the discrepancy will disappear and the translated 
manuals are all properly linked to each other.


Btw, does your comment indicate that you are currently not strongly 
opposed to translating the node names?