Documentation proposal

[Mike Massonnet]

Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:26:33 +0200
> Nick Schermer <nickschermer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The advantage of a hook is that we also have all the translations in
>> the docs package and keep them there (if we're going to use docbook
>> xml2po kinda stuff, bit harder to write but easier for translators to
>> track changes). I'm not sure, but I think if we merge all the doc
>> translations, a lot of duplicated strings will show up, which makes it
>> easier for translators.
> 
> I'm against too complex hooks. I also have the feeling that the good
> old gettext translation method is not really suited for continuous
> text. IMHO the little syntax overhead you have with reST makes .po
> files almost pointless.

Of course the po file is not readable, as good as the original file, but 
the most important thing here is to keep the translation synced with the 
english text. So unless there isn't a good solution for that without 
xml2po, I had recommend the use of the po files (even mandatory).

Mike