Re: Translations

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:48:14PM -0500, Przemys?aw
Pawe?czyk wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is the human layout below permitted?
> 
> <para>
> tekst..... (in one row!)
> </para>
> 
> AFAIK xml parsers should recognize both structures,
just as it is with
> HTML ones. What's more, all serious editors work
without text wrapping.
> It's up to text browsers to make appropriate
formatting.

While you're right that XML parsers and browsers have no
problem
dealing with long unwrapped lines, they should be wrapped
accordingly
regardless. It's simply a matter of readability for those
people
having to read and edit the source files. So, please wrap
long lines.

BTW, <netbsd-users> is the wrong list for questions
like
these. <netbsd-docs> is the right one.

Regards,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Sieger
Faculty of Technology
Bielefeld University
wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/dsieger

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:19:52 +0200
<dsiegertechfak.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> > Is the human layout below permitted?
> >
> > <para>
> > tekst..... (in one row!)
> > </para>
> >
> > AFAIK xml parsers should recognize both
structures, just as it is
> > with HTML ones. What's more, all serious editors
work without text
> > wrapping. It's up to text browsers to make
appropriate formatting.
>
> While you're right that XML parsers and browsers have
no problem
> dealing with long unwrapped lines, they should be
wrapped accordingly
> regardless. It's simply a matter of readability for
those people
> having to read and edit the source files. So, please
wrap long lines.

First, I used to use Nedit and I got no problem to switch
on/off wrapper
option. But I see your point.

Second, the following example is a real one (do you see the
idiosyncrasy of the <para></para> tags
placing?):

	<para>
	  text ............
	  text.........
	  continuation..
	  text</para>

Why not then to use the below layout if you want to have
good
readability without the need for switching the wrappings?

 <para>
  text ............
  text.........
  continuation..
  text
</para>

> BTW, <netbsd-users> is the wrong list for
questions like
> these. <netbsd-docs> is the right one.

Thanks, sure I will go to docs list next time. But as I
started the
thread here I hope you don't mind if I end it up here this
one time. I
see no point in switching now to docs list.

Regards,
pp

--
Przemysław Pawełczyk (p2o2) - pp_o2o2.pl
P2O2 - http://pp.kv.net.pl, P2O2
Forum - http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/

<dsiegertechfak.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote
  in <20070627215723.GB25896antipasto.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>:

ds> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:38:55PM -0500, Przemys?aw
Pawe?czyk wrote:
ds> >
ds> > Second, the following example is a real one (do
you see the
ds> > idiosyncrasy of the <para></para>
tags placing?):
ds> >
ds> > 	<para>
ds> > 	  text ............
ds> > 	  text.........
ds> > 	  continuation..
ds> > 	  text</para>
ds> >
ds> > Why not then to use the below layout if you want
to have good
ds> > readability without the need for switching the
wrappings?
ds> >
ds> >  <para>
ds> >   text ............
ds> >   text.........
ds> >   continuation..
ds> >   text
ds> > </para>
ds>
ds> AFAIK, currently there are no strict guidlines how to
place
ds> tags (someone pleace correct me if I'm wrong).
ds>
ds> WRT your example, I clearly prefer to place
opening/closing <para>'s
ds> on separate lines, especially if the content spans
more than one line.

 I have another opinion about this.  See
 http://mail-index.netbsd.org/www-changes/2005/05/0
6/0000.html.

--
| Hiroki SATO

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:53:57 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato <hrsNetBSD.org> wrote:

> <dsiegertechfak.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote
>   in <20070627215723.GB25896antipasto.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>:
> ds> > 	<para>
> ds> > 	  text ............
> ds> > 	  text.........
> ds> > 	  continuation..
> ds> > 	  text</para>
>  I have another opinion about this.  See
>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/www-changes/2005/05/0
6/0000.html.

Hi,

If this is so as you wrote nothing can be changed as far as
NetBSD is
concerned. You are not XML system designer, developer, and
propagandist.
You remarks are sound and consistent. I cannot complain
about XML to
you.

But you, and me, and others, we all have touched broader
issue. Why in
the times of so powerful PCs a Man has to tailor himself to
a Tool and
become de facto the Tool's Slave and not vice versa? It is,
why the IT
Tools are not a Man's Slaves (or Man's tools)? What's wrong
with the IT
world, the hell?!

PCs were invented to make our life easier, not tougher, as
it is in this
notorious example.

Sorry, but if what you wrote is correct the XML tools are
simply
a looney's B.S. And I'm not going to use them anytime, ever.
Not
directly anyway. Farewell translations then. If I need them
I'll do
them my way.

Regards,
pp

--
Przemysław Pawełczyk (p2o2) - pp_o2o2.pl
P2O2 - http://pp.kv.net.pl, P2O2
Forum - http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/