[Targnum-editing] Re: reviewer comments

[the duke]

ZMan ZMan wrote:

> the duke wrote:
>
> > Hi Moran
> > (This mail is also sent to the TarGNUm editors list for the skeletons.)
> >
> > Here are my reviewer's comments on the manifesto , plus a skeleton 
> > for an aditor comments report, and a skeleton for reviewer's comments.
> > these last two are needed so it will be easy to see the 
> > editing/reviewing details. these are first versions, if you think 
> > something should be added/changed, let me know.
> >
> > two more comments:
> >
> > 1) use tar.gz format, not Zip, as it is proprietary and deprecated by 
> > GNU.
> > for tar.zg you can do it using cygwin, or any DOS port of gtar you 
> > can find.
>
>
> nope.
> i'm not gonna use cygwin even though i have it installed. (i won't 
> even install WinACE or ala, even though it have .tgz support out of 
> the box)
> i'm gonna use Zip as long as i'm on windos as i know that free (as 
> both in freedom, and in free beer) implementations of it for free OSes 
> do exist. 

> well, gnu deprecate the usage of prop. OSes at all, may they tell you 
> to reject some of my translations because of this ? 

you know that _Winzip_ is a _shareware_, it is not free. you don't seem 
to know that Lempel-Ziv is copyrighted. And you also don't seem to know 
that some GNU/Linux distributions might not include a zip utility. only 
a gzip utility. we don't use it to make Stallman happy, we use it to 
make the package accessible for as much people as possible. we prefer 
not using Zip like we prefer not using MS Doc format. I won't throw away 
translations that someone will send me in DOC format, but I will be 
forced to copy them to HTML without the DOC formatting, and reformat the 
whole document. That's a lot of work just like opening every ZIP you 
send and resend it as TAR.GZ, so that everyone can enjoy it.

It's about sharing, not about being a zealot.

> > 2) all fixes that the reviewer does (except for very basic typos) has 
> > to be written in the comments, so that if the editor doesn't agree 
> > with them he won't have to use them, since he can't find them. 
> > actually the reviewer doesn't have to fix the document, he can just 
> > write comments.
> >
> > in case of consistant disagreement you can share the problem with 
> > others editors using the targnum-editing list (see the TarGNUm 
> > savannah page). in case that doesn't solve the problem, the 
> > coordinator can be asked to give the final decision (that's why there 
> > is a coordinator). 
>
>
> and that relates to... ? 

Future reviewing standards. The reason it was sent to the editors list.

> anyway i suggest using diff as a tool for *both* reviewers and 
> editors, so they can show diff's output as the "log" of their work, 
> what do you think ?

I agree, but I still have a problem with diffing Unicode.

> > -----
> > Notice that although the second comment below, I put online the 
> > reviewed version, since the changes I made has to do with standards, 
> > and those that have no standards, were only commented on, but not 
> > changed. in case you disagree with any of the changes, let me know, 
> > and we'll see if they should be undone.
> >
> > Being also the translator eliminated comments on phrasing, so I would 
> > rather a third person to also do a review.
>
>
> that's what i call a decent administration.
> kudos ! :)

I do my best :)

> > That's all,
> > what's your next document? (preferably for editing, rather than 
> > translation)
>
>
> hmm... should i just pick up what that's without an editor ? 

Preferably. It will create less clashes and will make other editors more 
alert that one day their translations may be left the only ones not edited.
In which case other editors will request them, which is quite a bummer 
for the original editor.

salut!
      the duke