[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Product names and reuse
Yes, I like the term and glossary approach. If the name of the feature (term name) is changed, then you can use a “who references me” on the glossary entry and read the topics to ensure that they still make sense. If the meaning of the feature name changes significantly then there will be problems so all its contexts have to be checked. For plurals and possessives or other alternative forms of the term the link or glossref key should go to the appropriate glossAlt/glossShortForm entry. Note, glossShortForm is not fully appropriate but I see no other more appropriate tag. If we can use a fragment identifier in the glossref href then this linking to different forms could be like this: <glossref keys="front.panel.plural" href=""> For translation, it sounds like there are potential problems with word inclusion mechanisms such as this term one. Unless translation tools also let the translator view the “who references me” to review the contextual effect of their translations these problems may persist and the entire word inclusion mechanism is brought into question for translation output. From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Mark Poston Andrzej, I would be interested to understand more about how, in your unbiased opinion, these issues can be resolved in DITA. Or, indeed, whether you think that they cannot be resolved and need the support of 3rd party tools when translation is required. In a project I have recently been working on we came to the conclusion that reuse methodologies were not appropriate due to the reasons you have stated. The translation vendor concerned raised their concerns about having to translate reused terms (not just product names). The actual solution was more about having to translate terminology whilst still needing to link to glossary entries. The result was that we used <term> tags to link to glossary entries. Where no content was defined in the term, the value could be pulled from the glossary entry itself. This gave the translators, however, the ability to do what they needed within the scope of the <term> tag. This solution, however, would still fall apart if names or terms completely changed. I can't see that there can be a completely DITA-based solution to this issue, especially when translation is required. Kind regards Mark Poston Senior Technical Consultant Mekon Ltd. Tel. +44 20 8722 8461 Mob +44 7515 906032 Skype mark_mekon.com From: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xtm-intl.com> Hi Troy, Best Regards,
--------------------------------------- CTO XTM International Ltd. PO Box 2167, Gerrards Cross, SL9 8XF, UK email: azydron@xtm-intl.com Tel: +44 (0) 1753 480 479 Mob: +44 (0) 7966 477 181 skype: Zydron On 15/01/2013 15:20, Troy Klukewich wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]