in reply to (OT) Marking up alternatives

Part of your issue is that you have an incomplete document. It should really read:
<locale lang="en">English Part 1</locale> <locale lang="fr">French Part 1</locale> <locale lang="it"></locale> <locale lang="en">English Part 2</locale> <locale lang="fr"></locale> <locale lang="it">Italian Part 2</locale>
That way, you have a copy for each language in each section. Alternately, you can provide additional semantic meaning by explicating the sections, as you mentioned as your first option. However, I wouldn't make it locale-specific. I'd do something like:
<section id="part1"> <locale lang="en">English Part 1</locale> <locale lang="fr">French Part 1</locale> </section> <section id="part2"> <locale lang="en">English Part 2</locale> <locale lang="it">Italian Part 2</locale> </section>

Now, you have a place to hang other stuff, like formatting. Don't get tunnel-vision.


My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (OT) Marking up alternatives
by UnderMine (Friar) on May 30, 2006 at 12:06 UTC
    I agree that we are talking about incomplete documentation and this is one of the biggest problems with translated documents. People have a tendency of only having the bits they need translated. This leaves you with partial translations. At the moment we use backout languages to find the most appropriate language but which raised the original question.

    One of the functions the system has to be able to do is report in translation coverage (ie how many documents are in all/some/one language). Your first markup makes it possible to run coverage reports that would show that some translations are missing. However the second is a lot clearer and would allow easy identification of exactly what part of the translation is missing.

    Thanks for the feedback
    UnderMine