Package synopses and blurbs translation

Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello, and best wishes!

As discussed before [0], Guix needs to provide users with translated
package synopses and descriptions.  It gets its synopses and
descriptions for GNU packages from the Womb [1,2] (so does GSRC, IIRC),
and has its own for non-GNU packages.

There’s gettext infrastructure ready for that in Guix, but we need to
coordinate so that the result is usable the all the possible users (web
translators, GSRC, and Guix.)

One possibility would be to use a specific text domain for package
descriptions/synopses in Guix, and then submit that to the Translation
Project.

Another option is to let the web translators in charge of that (with
GNUN), and then let Guix and GSRC synchronize periodically.  Guix would
still have to use the TP for non-GNU packages, though I’m not sure how
to handle that (different domain?).

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2013-10/msg00090.html
[1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/gnumaint/gnupackages.txt?root=womb
[2] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/gnumaint/pkgblurbs.txt?root=womb

Re: [bug-womb] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

    http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/gnumaint/pkgblurbs.txt

Looking at www/server, it seems there are currently some translations
of the blurbs for ru, fr, de, ja (just judging by file sizes).

I suggest the path of least resistance is to take these web translations
as the source for the others, and not try to involve TP for them.

    Guix would still have to use the TP for non-GNU packages, though Iœôòùm
    not sure how to handle that (different domain?).

I don't see why it needs to be a different domain, exactly.  Anyway,
coordinator@translationproject.org is the best advisor on all things TP.

FWIW,
k

Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit, Size: 3905 bytes --]

Packages which have a GUI, also need a .desktop file, which contains
two translatable strings:  "GenericName", and "Comment".  For example,
here is the .desktop file from pspp:

[Desktop Entry]
Name=GNU PSPP
GenericName=Statistical Software
GenericName[ca]=Programari estadístic
GenericName[cs]=Statistický program
GenericName[de]=Statistiksoftware
GenericName[es]=Programario Estadístico
GenericName[ja]=統計ソフトウェア
GenericName[lt]=Statistinė programinė įranga
GenericName[nl]=Statistische software
GenericName[uk]=Статистичне програмне забезпечення
Comment=Analyze statistical data with a free alternative to SPSS
Comment[ca]= Analitza dades estadístiques amb una alternativa lliure a SPSS
Comment[cs]= Analyzuj statistická data se svobodnou variantou SPSS
Comment[de]= Statistische Daten mit einer freien Alternative zu SPSS analysieren
Comment[en_GB]= Analyse statistical data with a free alternative to SPSS
Comment[es]= Analiza datos estadísticos con una alternativa libre a SPSS
Comment[ja]= フリーなSPSS代替ソフトウェアによる統計データ分析
Comment[lt]= Statistinių duomenų analizavimas su nemokama SPSS alternatyva
Comment[nl]= Analyseer statistische data met een vrij alternatief van SPSS
Comment[uk]= Аналіз статистичних даних у вільній альтернативі SPSS
Exec=psppire %F
Icon=pspp
Terminal=false
Type=Application
Categories=GTK;Education;Science;Math;
MimeType=application/x-spss-sav;application/x-spss-por;

The "Comment" string seems to serve the same purpose as Guix's "Synopsis" 
string. So I suggest that whatever method is used, we try to re-use one for the 
other.

I think the most desirable approach is to encourage package maintainers, to 
append the "Synopsis", "Description", "GenericName" etc strings to the .pot
files for their projects.  This saves having a team of translators dedicated
to translating names/descriptions of packages and the translators who are 
already familiar with a package are in the best position to make a translation.

However, not all package maintainers will comply.  So systems like Guix which
want to use Name/Description should look for the translation provided by the
package, and only if absent take one from a different source.

Just my $0.02

J'


On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 06:41:39PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
     Hello, and best wishes!
     
     As discussed before [0], Guix needs to provide users with translated
     package synopses and descriptions.  It gets its synopses and
     descriptions for GNU packages from the Womb [1,2] (so does GSRC, IIRC),
     and has its own for non-GNU packages.
     
     There???s gettext infrastructure ready for that in Guix, but we need to
     coordinate so that the result is usable the all the possible users (web
     translators, GSRC, and Guix.)
     
     One possibility would be to use a specific text domain for package
     descriptions/synopses in Guix, and then submit that to the Translation
     Project.
     
     Another option is to let the web translators in charge of that (with
     GNUN), and then let Guix and GSRC synchronize periodically.  Guix would
     still have to use the TP for non-GNU packages, though I???m not sure how
     to handle that (different domain?).
     
     WDYT?
     
     Thanks,
     Ludo???.
     
     [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2013-10/msg00090.html
     [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/gnumaint/gnupackages.txt?root=womb
     [2] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/gnumaint/pkgblurbs.txt?root=womb
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> Packages which have a GUI, also need a .desktop file, which contains
> two translatable strings:  "GenericName", and "Comment".  For example,
> here is the .desktop file from pspp:
>
> [Desktop Entry]
> Name=GNU PSPP
> GenericName=Statistical Software
> GenericName[ca]=Programari estadístic
> GenericName[cs]=Statistický program

[...]

> I think the most desirable approach is to encourage package maintainers, to 
> append the "Synopsis", "Description", "GenericName" etc strings to the .pot
> files for their projects.  This saves having a team of translators dedicated
> to translating names/descriptions of packages and the translators who are 
> already familiar with a package are in the best position to make a translation.
>
> However, not all package maintainers will comply.

Right, which means the only solution that works in practice is what we
have now.

In addition, since .desktop files don’t use gettext, I suppose it would
be harder to share translations.  Someone would have to come up with a
tool that gets translations from the www po files, and extracts them to
a .desktop.

Anyway, that’s another story...

Ludo’.

Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1807 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:17:35AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
     John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
     
     > I think the most desirable approach is to encourage package maintainers, to 
     > append the "Synopsis", "Description", "GenericName" etc strings to the .pot
     > files for their projects.  This saves having a team of translators dedicated
     > to translating names/descriptions of packages and the translators who are 
     > already familiar with a package are in the best position to make a translation.
     >
     > However, not all package maintainers will comply.
     
     Right, which means the only solution that works in practice is what we
     have now.

Well, does it work now?  do we have translations of every package description in Womb?
The plain ugly truth is that we have no solution which fully works now.  We have several
(equally good solutions) which are half adopted.  I don't think that telling all maintainers,
that henceforth they must do ... is going to be effective.  So that is why I suggest that
using the several solutions that we have, with fallback is going to be most effective in
the short term.
     
     In addition, since .desktop files don???t use gettext, I suppose it would
     be harder to share translations.  Someone would have to come up with a
     tool that gets translations from the www po files, and extracts them to
     a .desktop.

The tool is trivial and already available.  Look how we do it in PSPP :

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/pspp.git/tree/src/ui/gui/gen-dot-desktop.sh

J'
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:17:35AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
>      John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
>      
>      > I think the most desirable approach is to encourage package maintainers, to 
>      > append the "Synopsis", "Description", "GenericName" etc strings to the .pot
>      > files for their projects.  This saves having a team of translators dedicated
>      > to translating names/descriptions of packages and the translators who are 
>      > already familiar with a package are in the best position to make a translation.
>      >
>      > However, not all package maintainers will comply.
>      
>      Right, which means the only solution that works in practice is what we
>      have now.
>
> Well, does it work now?  do we have translations of every package description in Womb?

Translations are in the www repo.

> The plain ugly truth is that we have no solution which fully works now.

Well, the package descriptions in the Womb are brand new (thanks Karl
and Brandon), and the web page <https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html>
even more so.  Yet there are already a bunch of translations available,
and it’s easily reusable for Guix.

See, no need to be pessimistic!  :-)

Ludo’.

[gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/08/2014 03:06 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
> 
>> Well, does it work now?  do we have translations of every package description in Womb?
> 
> Translations are in the www repo.

Actually, only French translations are complete; in Japanese, German and Russian
many strings are untranslated.

If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
to commit their translations to www.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
> to commit their translations to www.

There would likely be duplicated work if there were both www and non www
people translating these things, which is why I started this discussion.

Are you suggesting that we might get better results via the TP?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
> to commit their translations to www.

There would likely be duplicated work if there were both www and non www
people translating these things, which is why I started this discussion.

Are you suggesting that we might get better results via the TP?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/09/2014 02:57 PM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
> 
>> If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
>> to commit their translations to www.
> 
> There would likely be duplicated work if there were both www and non www
> people translating these things, which is why I started this discussion.

I don't think so; there is more work than active translators.

> Are you suggesting that we might get better results via the TP?

No, I'm suggesting that it's possible to delegate the work to groups
other than GNU web translators (especially when we have no active
team for a language), and www.gnu.org can take advantage of it.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1070 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:25:37AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
     
     No, I'm suggesting that it's possible to delegate the work to groups
     other than GNU web translators (especially when we have no active
     team for a language), and www.gnu.org can take advantage of it.

I agree - and the people best qualified to translate the blurbs for a package,
are the translators for that package itself.  Hence my previous suggestion, viz:
encourage all projects to put the blurbs in their .pot templates. That way www.gnu.org,
guix and anyone else can take advantage of it.

Not all package maintainers will immediately do that of course,  hence my 
second suggestion - have a secondary source of blurb translations (possibly on the womb) 
which can be used if the primary source is absent.  Hopefully, given time, the 
secondary source will become unnecessary.

     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington via RT]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1049 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:25:37AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
     
     No, I'm suggesting that it's possible to delegate the work to groups
     other than GNU web translators (especially when we have no active
     team for a language), and www.gnu.org can take advantage of it.

I agree - and the people best qualified to translate the blurbs for a package,
are the translators for that package itself.  Hence my previous suggestion, viz:
encourage all projects to put the blurbs in their .pot templates. That way www.gnu.org,
guix and anyone else can take advantage of it.

Not all package maintainers will immediately do that of course,  hence my 
second suggestion - have a secondary source of blurb translations (possibly on the womb) 
which can be used if the primary source is absent.  Hopefully, given time, the 
secondary source will become unnecessary.

     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.




[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> On 01/09/2014 02:57 PM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
>> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
>> 
>>> If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
>>> to commit their translations to www.
>> 
>> There would likely be duplicated work if there were both www and non www
>> people translating these things, which is why I started this discussion.
>
> I don't think so; there is more work than active translators.
>
>> Are you suggesting that we might get better results via the TP?
>
> No, I'm suggesting that it's possible to delegate the work to groups
> other than GNU web translators (especially when we have no active
> team for a language), and www.gnu.org can take advantage of it.

I agree that it would be best, but how do we avoid duplication of work?
I mean, we already have a few package translations at
<http://translationproject.org/domain/guix.html> (representing the only
package file currently in POTFILES), but obviously the translators were
not aware of what was being done on the www side (and vice versa.)

I’m fairly new to the translation process, and I just don’t know how we
can tell the TP volunteers to synchronize with the www volunteers.  What
would you recommend?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> On 01/09/2014 02:57 PM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
>> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
>> 
>>> If there are other (non-web) translators, we may want to arrange a cron job
>>> to commit their translations to www.
>> 
>> There would likely be duplicated work if there were both www and non www
>> people translating these things, which is why I started this discussion.
>
> I don't think so; there is more work than active translators.
>
>> Are you suggesting that we might get better results via the TP?
>
> No, I'm suggesting that it's possible to delegate the work to groups
> other than GNU web translators (especially when we have no active
> team for a language), and www.gnu.org can take advantage of it.

I agree that it would be best, but how do we avoid duplication of work?
I mean, we already have a few package translations at
<http://translationproject.org/domain/guix.html> (representing the only
package file currently in POTFILES), but obviously the translators were
not aware of what was being done on the www side (and vice versa.)

I’m fairly new to the translation process, and I just don’t know how we
can tell the TP volunteers to synchronize with the www volunteers.  What
would you recommend?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/09/2014 01:29 PM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
 > I mean, we already have a few package translations at
 > <http://translationproject.org/domain/guix.html> (representing the only
 > package file currently in POTFILES), but obviously the translators were
 > not aware of what was being done on the www side (and vice versa.)
 >
 > I’m fairly new to the translation process, and I just don’t know how we
 > can tell the TP volunteers to synchronize with the www volunteers.  What
 > would you recommend?

I think it can be organized this way:

(0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;

(1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
what strings are blurbs.

However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
the reverse conversion seems missing.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> I think it can be organized this way:
>
> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
>
> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
> web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
> what strings are blurbs.

Sounds good.

What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?

> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
> the reverse conversion seems missing.

Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
the www ones have something like this at the end:

  <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>

Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
strings?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> I think it can be organized this way:
>
> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
>
> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
> web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
> what strings are blurbs.

Sounds good.

What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?

> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
> the reverse conversion seems missing.

Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
the www ones have something like this at the end:

  <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>

Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
strings?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2007 bytes --]

On 01/10/2014 03:12 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
 >>
 >> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
 >> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
 >>
 >> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
 >> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
 >> web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
 >> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
 >> what strings are blurbs.
 >
 > Sounds good.
 >
 > What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?

Discuss with coordinator@translationproject.org, I think; they may add
their own adjustments to the procedure before actually announcing it
to the translators.

 >> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
 >> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
 >> the reverse conversion seems missing.
 >
 > Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
 > the www ones have something like this at the end:
 >
 >   <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>
 >
 > Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
 > strings?

But they are translatable; what may make sense is separating them
to their own msgids (also, "This package is looking for a maintainer.").

GNUN has a means to do it when the strings can't come, say, in separate
paragraphs, <span class="gnun-split"></span>, like on the home page [0],
so this could be implemented like in the attachment.

Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
conversion would be necessary.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html
[1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnumaint/gm-generate.pl?root=womb&view=markup



[-- Attachment #2: gm-generate.pl.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 895 bytes --]

Index: gm-generate.pl
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/womb/gnumaint/gm-generate.pl,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -U 2 -r1.15 gm-generate.pl
--- gm-generate.pl	5 Nov 2013 14:41:52 -0000	1.15
+++ gm-generate.pl	10 Jan 2014 05:25:43 -0000
@@ -411,9 +411,11 @@
     # let's advertise if the package is looking for a maintainer.  maybe
     # we'll find someone.
-    push (@ret, "This package is looking for a maintainer.")
+    push (@ret, qq!<span class="gnun-split"></span>!
+               . "This package is looking for a maintainer.")
       if $activity =~ /^nomaint/;
 
     my $doc_links = "/manual/manual.html#$xhtml_id";
-    push (@ret, qq!<small>(<a href="$doc_links">doc</a>)!
+    push (@ret, qq!<span class="gnun-split"></span>!
+              . qq!<small>(<a href="$doc_links">doc</a>)!
               . qq!</small></p>!);
 

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> On 01/10/2014 03:12 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
>  >>
>  >> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
>  >> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
>  >>
>  >> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
>  >> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
>  >> web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
>  >> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
>  >> what strings are blurbs.
>  >
>  > Sounds good.
>  >
>  > What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?
>
> Discuss with coordinator@translationproject.org, I think; they may add
> their own adjustments to the procedure before actually announcing it
> to the translators.

OK, will do (once the remaining issue is solved.)

>  >> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
>  >> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
>  >> the reverse conversion seems missing.
>  >
>  > Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
>  > the www ones have something like this at the end:
>  >
>  >   <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>
>  >
>  > Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
>  > strings?
>
> But they are translatable; what may make sense is separating them
> to their own msgids (also, "This package is looking for a maintainer.").
>
> GNUN has a means to do it when the strings can't come, say, in separate
> paragraphs, <span class="gnun-split"></span>, like on the home page [0],
> so this could be implemented like in the attachment.

Excellent.

> Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
> different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
> I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
> converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
> conversion would be necessary.

That would be possible.  However, we synchronize the descriptions in our
source files directly with pkgblurbs.txt, which is *not* HTML.

So, should pkgblurbs.txt be changed to use HTML markup, should we keep
using it but implement the same markup-inference trick, or should we use
another source, or...?

It seems to me that the ideal would be to have (HTML) markup in the
authoritative source (pkgblurbs.txt).  Then users could choose whether
to keep/convert/discard that markup.  I believe it’s more flexible and
robust than trying to infer markup from plain text like gm-generate.pl
currently does.

WDYT?

Thanks for your help!

Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> On 01/10/2014 03:12 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
>  >>
>  >> (0) when a new (or corrected) translation is committed to www, www
>  >> translators send updates to TP, and they merge it to their PO files;
>  >>
>  >> (1) when a new translation is submitted to TP, the translators send
>  >> a copy to the respective www.gnu.org translation team (or
>  >> web-translators@gnu.org if that team doesn't maintain blurb
>  >> translation for some reason); of course, TP translators should know
>  >> what strings are blurbs.
>  >
>  > Sounds good.
>  >
>  > What would it take exactly to inform the TP folks of the process?
>
> Discuss with coordinator@translationproject.org, I think; they may add
> their own adjustments to the procedure before actually announcing it
> to the translators.

OK, will do (once the remaining issue is solved.)

>  >> However, there is a technical problem: www translations are in HTML,
>  >> while guix uses plain text. it's easy to transform plain text to HTML;
>  >> the reverse conversion seems missing.
>  >
>  > Seems to me that the only difference in the translated strings is that
>  > the www ones have something like this at the end:
>  >
>  >   <small>(<a href="/manual/manual.html#pkg_3dldf\">doc</a>)</small>
>  >
>  > Would it be possible somehow to remote that link from the translatable
>  > strings?
>
> But they are translatable; what may make sense is separating them
> to their own msgids (also, "This package is looking for a maintainer.").
>
> GNUN has a means to do it when the strings can't come, say, in separate
> paragraphs, <span class="gnun-split"></span>, like on the home page [0],
> so this could be implemented like in the attachment.

Excellent.

> Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
> different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
> I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
> converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
> conversion would be necessary.

That would be possible.  However, we synchronize the descriptions in our
source files directly with pkgblurbs.txt, which is *not* HTML.

So, should pkgblurbs.txt be changed to use HTML markup, should we keep
using it but implement the same markup-inference trick, or should we use
another source, or...?

It seems to me that the ideal would be to have (HTML) markup in the
authoritative source (pkgblurbs.txt).  Then users could choose whether
to keep/convert/discard that markup.  I believe it’s more flexible and
robust than trying to infer markup from plain text like gm-generate.pl
currently does.

WDYT?

Thanks for your help!

Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
     
     Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
     different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
     I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
     converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
     conversion would be necessary.

It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should
not ever be translated.  This is a useful convention to follow so that automatic
html translation services can recognise texts which should be left untranslated.

I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.

J'

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington via RT]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
     
     Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
     different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
     I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
     converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
     conversion would be necessary.

It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should
not ever be translated.  This is a useful convention to follow so that automatic
html translation services can recognise texts which should be left untranslated.

I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.

J'

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/10/2014 01:20 PM, John Darrington via RT wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
>      
>      Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
>      different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
>      I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
>      converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
>      conversion would be necessary.
> 
> It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should
> not ever be translated.  This is a useful convention to follow so that automatic
> html translation services can recognise texts which should be left untranslated.
> 
> I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.

I was not clear enough, what I meant was: the original text says,
--
foo uses "--bar" to baz.
--

gm-generate.pl converts it to
--
foo uses <tt>--bar</tt> to baz.
--

Now, some translator may replace the <tt> tag with <code>:
--
когда foo видит <code>--bar</code>, она бацает.
--

This makes the conversion of the translation (from HTML to plain text
and back) non-trivial.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/10/2014 01:17 PM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
> It seems to me that the ideal would be to have (HTML) markup in the
> authoritative source (pkgblurbs.txt).  Then users could choose whether
> to keep/convert/discard that markup.  I believe it’s more flexible and
> robust than trying to infer markup from plain text like gm-generate.pl
> currently does.
> 
> WDYT?

I think it may depend on the usage scenarios.

Karl?

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry]

I thought you guys didn't want these hypothetical TP translators to see
HTML.  If you do, fine, we can make the original be HTML, at least as
far as the internal text goes, which is the only concern here afaik.

Brandon and I wrote the blurbs in plain text simply because it seemed
natural; everything else we do starts with plain text, and there seemed
no reason to do otherwise.  Then I wrote gm-generate.pl to add HTML
boilerplate junk and convert the obvious things into HTML as needed
because that's how the text was needed on the web site.

It all seems far more trivial to me than this thread would imply.  

Whatever,
k

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry via RT]

I thought you guys didn't want these hypothetical TP translators to see
HTML.  If you do, fine, we can make the original be HTML, at least as
far as the internal text goes, which is the only concern here afaik.

Brandon and I wrote the blurbs in plain text simply because it seemed
natural; everything else we do starts with plain text, and there seemed
no reason to do otherwise.  Then I wrote gm-generate.pl to add HTML
boilerplate junk and convert the obvious things into HTML as needed
because that's how the text was needed on the web site.

It all seems far more trivial to me than this thread would imply.  

Whatever,
k

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Karl Berry via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> I thought you guys didn't want these hypothetical TP translators to see
> HTML.  If you do, fine, we can make the original be HTML, at least as
> far as the internal text goes, which is the only concern here afaik.

This is really just a suggestion.  What would you prefer?

If we are to remain plain text (less work for both of us), then how
about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Karl Berry via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

> I thought you guys didn't want these hypothetical TP translators to see
> HTML.  If you do, fine, we can make the original be HTML, at least as
> far as the internal text goes, which is the only concern here afaik.

This is really just a suggestion.  What would you prefer?

If we are to remain plain text (less work for both of us), then how
about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/11/2014 10:21 AM, Ludovic Courtès via RT wrote:
> how about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?

I'm afraid www.gnu.org translators would object; sometimes they
want to adjust the markup.

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry]

    What would you prefer?

I prefer plain text, but I don't feel that strongly about it, as such.

    about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?

If the "translation" you're referring to is the home-pkgblurbs.html file
which the web translators work with, that is (obviously) specifically
for the web site, so it doesn't make sense to not be HTML.

Has anyone written to Benno et al. @ coordinator yet?  Anything
happening with TP requires them to agree, not to mention do any work on
the TP side.

On the other hand, having translations simultaneously happening in TP
and www seems like a lot of headache to me.  And www translators will
not, in general, be technically up to using TP.  That is the whole
reason we are doing what we're doing.

Thus, it seems to me that the path of least resistance would be to have
any translators who want to work on the blurbs provide translations of
the web file (they could email them to web-translators if they aren't
already doing www translations).  For guix/gsrc purposes, you guys can
just strip out the html.  It is not that hard; not like you have to
actually parse all of HTML to do this job.  A few trivial text
substituions and we can put this to rest.

k

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry via RT]

    What would you prefer?

I prefer plain text, but I don't feel that strongly about it, as such.

    about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?

If the "translation" you're referring to is the home-pkgblurbs.html file
which the web translators work with, that is (obviously) specifically
for the web site, so it doesn't make sense to not be HTML.

Has anyone written to Benno et al. @ coordinator yet?  Anything
happening with TP requires them to agree, not to mention do any work on
the TP side.

On the other hand, having translations simultaneously happening in TP
and www seems like a lot of headache to me.  And www translators will
not, in general, be technically up to using TP.  That is the whole
reason we are doing what we're doing.

Thus, it seems to me that the path of least resistance would be to have
any translators who want to work on the blurbs provide translations of
the web file (they could email them to web-translators if they aren't
already doing www translations).  For guix/gsrc purposes, you guys can
just strip out the html.  It is not that hard; not like you have to
actually parse all of HTML to do this job.  A few trivial text
substituions and we can put this to rest.

k

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 06:34:38PM -0500, Karl Berry via RT wrote:
     
     On the other hand, having translations simultaneously happening in TP
     and www seems like a lot of headache to me.  

I agree, and this is what I was alluding to in my previous emails - and in some
cases the work is not only being duplicated, but triplicated --- www, TP, and
independently by the packages themselves.

     And www translators will
     not, in general, be technically up to using TP.  

That, I find hard to believe.  TP requires no technical ability, beyond editing
the po files (either using a tool or a normal editor) and sending emails.  It is
perhaps true that the TP robot is somewhat cumbersome - a web interface to 
compilment the current email interface might be a good idea.  But like you say,
this will require cooperation between TP and whoever.  Might this not be a good
opportunity to work together for a solution .... ?

     
J'
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[John Darrington via RT]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 06:34:38PM -0500, Karl Berry via RT wrote:
     
     On the other hand, having translations simultaneously happening in TP
     and www seems like a lot of headache to me.  

I agree, and this is what I was alluding to in my previous emails - and in some
cases the work is not only being duplicated, but triplicated --- www, TP, and
independently by the packages themselves.

     And www translators will
     not, in general, be technically up to using TP.  

That, I find hard to believe.  TP requires no technical ability, beyond editing
the po files (either using a tool or a normal editor) and sending emails.  It is
perhaps true that the TP robot is somewhat cumbersome - a web interface to 
compilment the current email interface might be a good idea.  But like you say,
this will require cooperation between TP and whoever.  Might this not be a good
opportunity to work together for a solution .... ?

     
J'
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.




[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

> [karl - Sat Jan 11 18:34:38 2014]:
> 
> > What would you prefer?
> 
> I prefer plain text, but I don't feel that strongly about it, as such.
> 
> > about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?
> 
> If the "translation" you're referring to is the home-pkgblurbs.html file
> which the web translators work with, that is (obviously) specifically
> for the web site, so it doesn't make sense to not be HTML.

So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
I'd file
a patch to bug-womb.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

>> [karl - Sat Jan 11 18:34:38 2014]:
>> 
>> > What would you prefer?
>> 
>> I prefer plain text, but I don't feel that strongly about it, as such.
>> 
>> > about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?
>> 
>> If the "translation" you're referring to is the home-pkgblurbs.html file
>> which the web translators work with, that is (obviously) specifically
>> for the web site, so it doesn't make sense to not be HTML.
>
> So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
> I'd file
> a patch to bug-womb.

I became convinced that we (Guix) could just get files from the Web
translators and patch occurrences of <code>.  Really a hack, but it’s
probably less intrusive for the rest of us.

I was planning to email the TP coordinator to work out the details of
the coordination process with the GNU web translators, but I haven’t yet
taken the time to do it.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

>> [karl - Sat Jan 11 18:34:38 2014]:
>> 
>> > What would you prefer?
>> 
>> I prefer plain text, but I don't feel that strongly about it, as such.
>> 
>> > about not introducing HTML markup in the translated text?
>> 
>> If the "translation" you're referring to is the home-pkgblurbs.html file
>> which the web translators work with, that is (obviously) specifically
>> for the web site, so it doesn't make sense to not be HTML.
>
> So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
> I'd file
> a patch to bug-womb.

I became convinced that we (Guix) could just get files from the Web
translators and patch occurrences of <code>.  Really a hack, but it’s
probably less intrusive for the rest of us.

I was planning to email the TP coordinator to work out the details of
the coordination process with the GNU web translators, but I haven’t yet
taken the time to do it.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry]

    So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML?

It seems ugly to me in principle, but if the consensus is that that is
the most useful approach, ok, I won't object (i.e., will install the
patch :).  I don't have strong feelings about it.

karl

Re: [bug-womb] [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Karl Berry via RT]

    So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML?

It seems ugly to me in principle, but if the consensus is that that is
the most useful approach, ok, I won't object (i.e., will install the
patch :).  I don't have strong feelings about it.

karl

[gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

> [ludo@gnu.org - Fri Feb 14 06:03:29 2014]:
> 
> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
> >
> > So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
> > I'd file
> > a patch to bug-womb.
> 
> I became convinced that we (Guix) could just get files from the Web
> translators and patch occurrences of <code>.  Really a hack, but it’s
> probably less intrusive for the rest of us.

Then there is no point in changing anything in womb (at least, not now).

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

>> [ludo@gnu.org - Fri Feb 14 06:03:29 2014]:
>> 
>> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
>> >
>> > So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
>> > I'd file
>> > a patch to bug-womb.
>> 
>> I became convinced that we (Guix) could just get files from the Web
>> translators and patch occurrences of <code>.  Really a hack, but it’s
>> probably less intrusive for the rest of us.
>
> Then there is no point in changing anything in womb (at least, not now).

Right.

Ludo’.

Re: [gnu.org #881181] Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ludovic Courtès via RT]

"Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:

>> [ludo@gnu.org - Fri Feb 14 06:03:29 2014]:
>> 
>> "Ineiev via RT" <web-translators@gnu.org> skribis:
>> >
>> > So, are we to change the source format of blurb items to HTML? if yes,
>> > I'd file
>> > a patch to bug-womb.
>> 
>> I became convinced that we (Guix) could just get files from the Web
>> translators and patch occurrences of <code>.  Really a hack, but it’s
>> probably less intrusive for the rest of us.
>
> Then there is no point in changing anything in womb (at least, not now).

Right.

Ludo’.