[GNC-dev] ITS; was: Porting the Tutorial & Concepts Guide to ReadTheDocs.org

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

Am 10.02.21 um 14:43 schrieb Geert Janssens:
> Considering most of the documentation is common, a translation flow based on a 
> master document with message catalogs makes sense to me. The huge benefit is 
> that we can offer user-friendly systems to translators. I seem to remember the 
> biggest hurdle for documentation writers and translators is git.

Yes, but other new contributors, too.

> Going for a 
> gettext based translation system, at least translators would be able to do 
> most of their job in tools familiar to them, like weblate or poedit or 
> whatever.

It must not neccessary be gettext. Have a look at
https://docs.weblate.org/en/latest/formats.html#bimono. But that needs
more research.

> But we should take care to also be able to handle that small part that's not. 
> And that's where ITS in the docbook context would come in. It allows (among 
> others) to mark certain sections as applying only to one specific "language".

I have added a comment with an example from
https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/ into
help/C/Help_ch_Tools_Assistants.xml, to enable it, changes in the DTD
seems required.

My other future playgrounds will be the TXF sections to split the
general part from the US part.

> That would allow an American document writer to explain the basics of American 
> taxes, and a Dutch translator could replace that with a Dutch alternative in 
> such a way that if the American section changes the Dutch translation is not 
> affected.
> 
> And it would allow the American document to explain state taxes. Belgium and 
> the Netherlands don't have states, so that section could be omitted in a Dutch 
> translation.

I do not remember sales related state taxes, but Municipal taxes exist
in some cities her like Amusement tax.

Regards
Frank