Hi,
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I have to say "I told you so". When the existing translation scheme was
> built two+ years ago, I pointed out that it was cumbersome, confusing and
> inaccessable and predicted that none of our non-English communities would use
> it.
The main problem as "I told you back then" is that a person willing to
contribute to the website has to jump through a lot of hoops. As you probably
noticed, potential translators who participated in this thread had no clue about
the possibility of website translation. To know about that requires either
searching the archives of pgsql-www or looking at pgweb module on gborg (which
is itself "deprecated" for quite a bit of time).
So to learn about translation infrastructure one essentially has to already know
about translation infrastructure.
> So, my vote is that whether or not we have *an* translation infrastructure,
> the current incomplete and non-standard infrastructure be junked. It's never
> going to be used in its current form.
Well, even if you create a complete and standard infrastructure you'll still
need to translate at least
1) Script messages and words from common templates. This can be done now through
complete and standard gettext.
2) Content stored in database (news and such). There is an interface for this
now, though it may require polishing (no one can say for sure, 'cause no one
actually *used* that).
The only real problem IMO is "static" pages containing a lot of text and stored
in CVS currently. It wasn't the brightest idea back then and they probably
belong in the database, alongside all other stuff.
