#2 Avoid translations being outdated after non-content changes in EN version

Open
opened 2 years ago by max.mehl · 4 comments
max.mehl commented 2 years ago

There are several old news items for which the translations are displayed as outdated, but they are not (maybe a typo was fixed in the English version).

As we don’t alter news items content wise after publication, is there a way we can now change the status of the old news items, and make sure that does not happen in future?

Currently, editors have to manually fake-update all translations if they make a minor fix. There has been a discussion in Jan 2015 (“Dealing with translations incorrectly labelled outdated”) but maybe we are in a better technical position now.

There are several old news items for which the translations are displayed as outdated, but they are not (maybe a typo was fixed in the English version). As we don't alter news items content wise after publication, is there a way we can now change the status of the old news items, and make sure that does not happen in future? Currently, editors have to manually fake-update all translations if they make a minor fix. There has been a discussion in Jan 2015 ("Dealing with translations incorrectly labelled outdated") but maybe we are in a better technical position now.
max.mehl added the
translations
label 2 years ago
max.mehl added the
feature-request
label 2 years ago

As mentioned in the webmasters mailing-list, a quick fix could be to add a tag in the xHTML documents.

The tag would look like following:

<lastedit major="yyyy-mm-dd hh:MM" minor="yyyy-mm-dd hh:MM" />

The script deciding whether the text box should be displayed or not could compare the lastedit.major date in the main document with the last lastedit.major in the translation. When the tag is not present, it would fallback to the document last modified date.

As said in the mailing list, this is far from foolproof, but given the translations need to be pushed to the git, doing a pull request, there at least is a hacker in the loop to control such a tag exists and is up to date.

This is the best user-friendliness/ease-of-implementation ratio I can come with!

As [mentioned in the webmasters mailing-list](https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/web/2018-May/012243.html), a quick fix could be to add a tag in the xHTML documents. The tag would look like following: <lastedit major="yyyy-mm-dd hh:MM" minor="yyyy-mm-dd hh:MM" /> The script deciding whether the text box should be displayed or not could compare the `lastedit.major` date in the main document with the last `lastedit.major` in the translation. When the tag is not present, it would fallback to the document last modified date. As said in the mailing list, this is far from foolproof, but given the translations need to be pushed to the git, doing a pull request, there at least is a hacker in the loop to control such a tag exists and is up to date. This is the best user-friendliness/ease-of-implementation ratio I can come with!
reinhard commented 7 months ago
Collaborator

It might be easier to handle if we introduce a version number of the text rather than a full date, like <version>2</version>.

It might be easier to handle if we introduce a version number of the text rather than a full date, like `<version>2</version>`.
max.mehl commented 7 months ago
Owner

I disliked the manual version number for a long time but meanwhile think it might really be the most sensible approach…

I disliked the manual version number for a long time but meanwhile think it might really be the most sensible approach...
jzarl commented 3 months ago
Collaborator

I second that approach, and would prefer the simple flat ‘version’ tag. This would also make bulk edits much easier…

I second that approach, and would prefer the simple flat 'version' tag. This would also make bulk edits much easier...
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
4 Participants
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.