discuss: DocBook vs LinuxDoc (was LDP Incorporate ...)
Subject:
Re: [discuss] DocBook vs LinuxDoc (was LDP Incorporate ...)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
6 Nov 2007 06:44:23 +0000
Message-Id: <20071106064348.GD1972@davespc>
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:03:22AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> nxml mode for emacs makes the XML/DocBook authoring process HTML-like
> simple.
I find LinuxDoc significantly simpler than writing in HTML.
> Plus, as has been mentioned already, there are much more XML parsing
> tools on the market, including computer aided translation tools (CAT).
What's needed here is a better machine conversion from LinuxDoc to
DocBook xml. Merging of LinuxDoc and Docbook might do this. Is there
any problem of converting from DocBook-sgml with all tags present to
DocBook-xml?
> When translation is involved and one does not want the translators to
> work in the source, for fear of breaking it,
I don't understand. Wouldn't backups enable restoration of any
accidental deletions made by the translator? I've done accidental
deletions and found what I deleted in my backups. With docs widely
spread around the Internet, one might be able to get the equivalent of a
backup off the Internet.
> it is important to have such tools, that also contribute to
> ensuring that the translation is homogenous terminology-wise.
The original may not be homogeneous terminology-wise and a good
translation may be superior to the original.
Can't the tools be configured to leave tags alone and just translate
the text outside of tags?
David Lawyer
