Using userbase for manuals

[Ingo Malchow]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 01.07.2012 13:14, schrieb Kevin Ottens:
> On Sunday 1 July 2012 10:17:21 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> El Diumenge, 1 de juliol de 2012, a les 09:49:11, Kevin Ottens va
>> escriure:
>>> More seriously, I think we shouldn't loose perspective here.
>>> Yes, you're right, it *can* happen, but Boudewijn is also
>>> right, it's becoming rare situation.
>> 
>> Sincerely I don't agree, having 100% internet connection each
>> time I use my computer is something I don't have and I do live in
>> Europe, I can't think what's like for someone in poorer regions.
> 
> Indeed, you got a point.
> 
>>> My opinion is that I would love to go for it, and if over time
>>> that turns out to be a problem, we could ship a dump of the
>>> relevant wiki content along the application. It'd be used as
>>> fallback if the wiki cannot be reached online. This way we'd
>>> still benefit from the better contribution scalability of
>>> userbase compared to our current situation.
>> 
>> And i'm going to be a pain here, but i do not agree userbase
>> scale better either. Let's see Krita manual at
>> http://userbase.kde.org/Krita it's translated to 7 languages only
>> two of them being at 100%
>> 
>> Now let's see KMail manual at 
>> http://l10n.kde.org/stats/doc/stable-kde4/po/kmail.po/ and we
>> have 12 at 100% and a few more over 90%
> 
> Right but that said, the number of translations is not the only
> metric to take into account regarding documentation. Overall
> quality of it and its coverage of the application features, keeping
> up with changes, are equally important IMO.
> 
> That's where I think the wiki is actually superior to the docbook
> stuff we're doing (as Boud and Eike pointed out). Now the low
> number of translations? That's likely in part because our
> translators are not used to look there to translate.
> 
> Which raises the question of: If we were to consistently use the
> wiki how do we best support our documentation translators? Would
> they just be happy with being pointed to the wiki as it is a simple
> enough tool? Or would they need the wiki content extracted as po
> files so that they use their current toolchain for translation (aka
> the wiki is a too simple tool)?
> 
> Both possibilities are fine IMO. Means in the second case we need
> to write an equivalent to our current docbook extractor but for the
> wiki somehow.

Actually no need to. Translations can already be exported/imported as
po files. One of the benefits of the translate extension (which was
highlighted today in a talk at akademy ;) And docbook export is also
something that is being tested. It is not 100% save yet, just needs a
bit more eyes to really make it work good.

The only issue is probably about workflow and some improvements in the
produced output, but the authors of that mediawiki extension are
indeed very responsive.

> 
> Regards.
> 

Cheerio,

- -- 
Ingo Malchow
(neverendingo)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/wR3cACgkQgFDgF4YW7sf7JACgtT4M3n1uCyI53Y1ArWic/2NH
Jl0AnRuDEhvJ9ZOsXpIkDe9PVNCkykV1
=pWHN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----