Re: [docbook] Re: [docbook-comment] internationalisation after 17years

Hi,

If that's not too much of a maintenance nightmare, I suggest 2 versions
of the schema are published: with and without i18n stuff. Just thinking
of newcomers scared by 400+ elements, not all of them very explicitly named.

My 2 hazelnuts.

Camille.

Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Norman Walsh wrote:
>> [ Forwarding to the  list because that's
>>   were actual technical discussion takes place. (Not your fault,
>> Michiel.) ]
>>
>> / Michiel Kamermans <> was heard to say:
>> | Docbook has been around for 17 years, and it's *still* not properly
>> | internationalised. I've been waiting for the DocBook 5 specification
>> | in the hopes it would follow the W3C ruby annotation used in CJK
>> | languages but useful outside this context too, only to see that as of
>> | the most recent v5 specification there is still no such thing
>> | available in DocBook, making it impossible to write textbooks in
>> | English about Chinese or Japanese, or write full texts in these
>> | languages for all audiences.
>>
>> Thank you for this comment. I'm sorry that we weren't made aware of
>> this deficiency earlier. I consider proper internationalization a
>> critical requirement for DocBook markup.
>
> Actually, there is customized version of DocBook that is properly
> internationalized, see
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#docbook
>
> This customization adds few new attributes and elements from ITS
> namespace to improve i18n/l10n support in DocBook vocabulary. Ruby
> markup is one of added elements.
>
> I can imagine that future version of DocBook might directly include
> ITS markup or even introduce Ruby elements directly in DocBook namespace.
>
> And, Michiel, please note that DocBook evolution is driven by
> requirements of DocBook users. So if you want to be sure that there is
> support for marking-up particular structure, please use the following
> page to submit new requirements:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=384107&group_id=21935&func=browse
>