cvs commit: doc/es_ES.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports chapter.sgml

[Vicente Carrasco -Bixen-]

Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
> Vicente Carrasco -Bixen- <carvay at FreeBSD.org> wrote
>   in <49232B76.106 at FreeBSD.org>:
> 
> ca> Hiroki Sato(e)k dio:
> ca> > I think using <quote> instead of &[lr]aquo; is more reasonable.  The
> ca> >  <quote> element in DocBook is just for in-line text with quotation
> ca> >  marks, not implying either citation or other semantics.  So, if you
> ca> >  just want to add quotation marks around a text, not for emphasizing
> ca> >  it, using <quote> is the right way.
> ca> >
> ca>
> ca>
> ca> I'm pretty sure that you're right, the reasonable, and canonical way
> ca> of doing that things in DocBook (probably in English and other
> ca> languages) is that. I have no doubt about it. But I think that it's a
> ca> good idea using [lr]aquo; in *our* texts because:
> ca>
> ca> - it's easier to type than <quote> and </quote>. One of the reasons of
> ca> - our lack of translators in our branch of FDP is that they can't just
> ca> - type, and they have to type a lot of tags, acutes and so on.
> 
>  The quotation mark should be considered separately from alphabet with
>  accent mark.  I agree that translated documents directly use such
>  characters instead of something like &acute;, but I cannot agree that
>  &laquo; is easier than <quote>.   If we allow the translator to remove
>  a tag for a reason that she just does not want to type a lot of tags,
>  we cannot keep the consistency.  What do you mean exactly by "easy to
>  type" and "they cannot type it"? 

I said "...they can't just type". Sorry for my broken English, sometimes 
is not the best dialectical tool. I mean that our translators would 
prefer just type in plain Spanish, for example using tildes and not 
acutes. Anyway that's not a problem, we have not so much volunteers 
right now and something like that wouldn't be very helpful at the 
moment. There is nobody to say "Hurray, the acutes are gone!".


> While for alphabet I can understand
>  because the translator needs to type a lot of entities if we enforce
>  to use stuff like &acute; instead of raw character,  I think there is
>  no difference between the two (&laquo; vs <quote>) in terms of ease.
> 
>  We must decide which should be used based on its reasonability
>  anyway.  Would you elaborate the reason more specifically?
> 


I can try it.

My point is: in my language (not in DocBook, in my mother thonge) using 
<quote> or &laquo; is simply a matter of taste in each moment. I can't 
figure why is so important to you. What I can tell you is that is not so 
important for me.





> ca> - The quotes that you got when using [lr]aquo; are called "latin". That
> ca> - sounds interesting to me, as a translator to Spanish, for obvious
> ca> - reasons ;-)
> 
>  If you want to use another kind of quotation mark in the localized
>  document, change stylesheet, not the document itself.
> 


But I find useful the have those two kinds of quotation marks. If I can 
use them, why I would use just one?


By the way,  I like bikesheds in magenta.




-- 
===================================================
           J. Vicente Carrasco -- Bixen
     carvay at [tikismikis.org | FreeBSD.org]
Current Basque Beret: Spanish FDP Translationmeister
        ------ Primum non nocere -------
===================================================
                                                  --