On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:46:24PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 20.06.2018 15:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>
> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
> supported branches for several more years, but we at Postgres Professional are
> ready to accept any your decision on this matter for now.
>
> I had not thought of translations, but wouldn't all translations also
> need to switch from SGML to XML for back branches? That would be a lot
> of work.
>
> Hello Bruce,
>
> I think there are two approaches here.
>
> First, if translation is performed directly in sgml (say, we have
> adminpack_fr.sgml), we'd have to convert the existing translation files to XML
> anyway - otherwise we'll have to start translating version 11 from scratch. So
> some tools/scripts are needed to perform the conversion. I don't think it would
> be difficult to use these tools to convert existing translation for version 10
> (and 9.6, 9.5...) to XML and to continue working with it. And after the
> conversion is done we could maintain all the translations in a consistent way,
> using a single tool.
>
> Second, if translation is performed indirectly, via the PO (as we do, e.g. see
> [1]), then the conversion is a matter of automatic producing .po from xml. We
> see no difficulties with it either.
>
> So I see no extra work for translators as a consequence of backporting XML
> format except for reusing some tools, which are needed anyway.
Yes, if you can do the translation automated, you are right. However,
in talking to Peter E, he seemed to say there was a lot of manual work,
and obviously doing that only once for a translation is preferable.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +