Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:11:56 +0100 From: Vicente Carrasco -Bixen- <carvay@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: carvay@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, gabor@FreeBSD.org, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/es_ES.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports chapter.sgml Message-ID: <492456EC.1060805@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20081120.024358.165704999.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <49172838.2000405@FreeBSD.org> <20081119.051619.127281917.hrs@allbsd.org> <49232B76.106@FreeBSD.org> <20081120.024358.165704999.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
> Vicente Carrasco -Bixen- <carvay@FreeBSD.org> wrote
> in <49232B76.106@FreeBSD.org>:
>
> ca> Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
> ca> > I think using <quote> instead of &[lr]aquo; is more reasonable. The
> ca> > <quote> element in DocBook is just for in-line text with quotation
> ca> > marks, not implying either citation or other semantics. So, if you
> ca> > just want to add quotation marks around a text, not for emphasizing
> ca> > it, using <quote> is the right way.
> ca> >
> ca>
> ca>
> ca> I'm pretty sure that you're right, the reasonable, and canonical way
> ca> of doing that things in DocBook (probably in English and other
> ca> languages) is that. I have no doubt about it. But I think that it's a
> ca> good idea using [lr]aquo; in *our* texts because:
> ca>
> ca> - it's easier to type than <quote> and </quote>. One of the reasons of
> ca> - our lack of translators in our branch of FDP is that they can't just
> ca> - type, and they have to type a lot of tags, acutes and so on.
>
> The quotation mark should be considered separately from alphabet with
> accent mark. I agree that translated documents directly use such
> characters instead of something like ´, but I cannot agree that
> « is easier than <quote>. If we allow the translator to remove
> a tag for a reason that she just does not want to type a lot of tags,
> we cannot keep the consistency. What do you mean exactly by "easy to
> type" and "they cannot type it"?
I said "...they can't just type". Sorry for my broken English, sometimes
is not the best dialectical tool. I mean that our translators would
prefer just type in plain Spanish, for example using tildes and not
acutes. Anyway that's not a problem, we have not so much volunteers
right now and something like that wouldn't be very helpful at the
moment. There is nobody to say "Hurray, the acutes are gone!".
> While for alphabet I can understand
> because the translator needs to type a lot of entities if we enforce
> to use stuff like ´ instead of raw character, I think there is
> no difference between the two (« vs <quote>) in terms of ease.
>
> We must decide which should be used based on its reasonability
> anyway. Would you elaborate the reason more specifically?
>
I can try it.
My point is: in my language (not in DocBook, in my mother thonge) using
<quote> or « is simply a matter of taste in each moment. I can't
figure why is so important to you. What I can tell you is that is not so
important for me.
> ca> - The quotes that you got when using [lr]aquo; are called "latin". That
> ca> - sounds interesting to me, as a translator to Spanish, for obvious
> ca> - reasons ;-)
>
> If you want to use another kind of quotation mark in the localized
> document, change stylesheet, not the document itself.
>
But I find useful the have those two kinds of quotation marks. If I can
use them, why I would use just one?
By the way, I like bikesheds in magenta.
--
===================================================
J. Vicente Carrasco -- Bixen
carvay at [tikismikis.org | FreeBSD.org]
Current Basque Beret: Spanish FDP Translationmeister
------ Primum non nocere -------
===================================================
--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?492456EC.1060805>