[open-data-manual] Weekly update - move to Github, infrastructure for translations

[Rufus Pollock]

On 3 August 2011 18:43, Tim McNamara <paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 04:01, Friedrich Lindenberg
> <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Tim McNamara <tim.mcnamara at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> Translations
>>> =========
>>>
>>> https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/open-data-manual/
>>>
>>> I have create a Transifex project. This is a site that shares the load
>>> of translation between all projects that are part of it. That means,
>>> if we translate the term "Open knowledge is good", every project on
>>> the site gets to benefit. There are just over 1,500 projects in the
>>> system.
>>
>> Rufus and I just had a discussion on this. While I'm sure that
>> Transifex (or gettext in general) is the best way to do a straight
>> translation of the manual into another language, I'm not entirely
>> convinced this is what we want to aim for with the translated
>> versions: I think it makes little sense to just convert the somewhat
>> generic English version into a German or French version, in those
>> cases you do want to add chapters (e.g. on copyright exceptions,
>> federal structure etc.) that would have no place in the "Global"
>> edition. Otherwise you need two documents: the translated thing and a
>> "what this means for X" version. The distinction makes sense for
>> English, but not languages that are somewhat coupled to a legal
>> environment.
>>
>> What do other people think?
>>
>> - Fr.
>
> I agree that a pure translation approach would be detrimental to the
> project. However, languages cross locales. If there are elements which

I'm not so sure that pure translation is problem -- most of the core
material is generic. Furthermore, it will be *much* easier to get pure
translation done, to manage it and to update it going forward ...

> are specific to jurisdictions, then perhaps we should have new
> sections created in that language and then bring them back into
> English?

I think an approach that involved 'pure' translation of core and the
addition of new sections of annexes which are jurisdiction specific
might kill two birds with one stone.

Rufus