Re: [translations] Our language downloads are chaotic.

[Federico Bruni <fede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Il giorno gio 27 feb 2020 alle 16:17, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> ha 
scritto:
> Federico Bruni <fede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >  Il giorno gio 27 feb 2020 alle 02:10, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> ha
> >  scritto:
> > >  For example, try downloading any French documentation from
> > >  <http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation.fr.html> 
> > > if
> > >  your browser locale is not French.  Possibly even if it is.
> >
> > >  I am currently setting up the size listings to correspond with the
> > >  actual files linked there, but the actual files apparently are
> > >  incorrect
> > >  all too often.
> > >  I've not yet discovered a coherent strategy in the various
> > >  translations
> > >  how they attempt to, by and large, get a hold of downloads in their
> > >  own
> > >  language.
> > >  The download details pages are where the sizes are currently given
> > >  (the
> > >  others are without size currently as far as I can tell: it should
> > >  not be
> > >  too much work to reorganise size indications once I am finished, to
> > >  get
> > >  more of them).
> >
> >  I see that the link to the PDF file is correct in the spanish page:
> >  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation.es.html
> >
> >  So it seems that the other languages should be fixed.
> >  I don't know where though.
> >
> >  The files are present, for example:
> >  http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.it.pdf
> >
> >  it's only a wrong URL.
> >
> >  The links in the website generated by make doc are correct, as you 
> > can
> >  see if you open a locally built website.
>
> The thing is a nightmare to diagnose since our web server settings 
> tell
> the server to serve xxx.it.extension in preference of xxx.extension if
> your browser settings say that you prefer Italian.
>
> So when a link in the Italian documentation demands xxx.extension, a
> developer having Italian set as preference in their browser will see
> xxx.it.extension and think things work well.  But there are two 
> problems
> with that: if somebody without Italian in their preferences tries the
> Italian language version, they get thrown back all the time at a
> different language (English, or their own preferred language).  And if
> they download a PDF file, it will be named notation.pdf but correspond
> to notation.it.pdf.

AFAICS your reasoning is correct for HTML links, but not for links to 
other types of files (such as PDF files).
Take this page as example:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation.it.html

The link to the notation PDF file is a direct link. Content negotiation 
doesn't play any role here.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf

This means that we must fix the link.
Catalan and spanish pages are the only languages which link to the 
translated PDF file:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation.ca.html links 
to notation.ca.pdf
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation.es.html links 
to notation.es.pdf


The link for content negotiation is:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/web/notation

and will resolve to the HTML file of the browser language.
There's no link for PDF file content negotiation, at least in this 
setup.


> So I think the proper thing to do would be to rely on automatic 
> language
> selection _only_ for the landing page(s) of the LilyPond web site and
> use explicit language links for everything we do.

I agree. This has been already proposed in issue 2273:
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/2273/

> Which means that we'll likely need to generate/link xxx.en.extension
> versions as well so that the English documentation, once selected,
> manages to stick with English.

I don't see the reason for using xxx.en.extension.
If 2273 is fixed, localized pages will have xxx.LANG.html links while 
english pages will have simply xxx.html, as it happens with offline 
website. There's no possible conflict.


> There is the odd case of untranslated pages that should fall back to
> browser defaulted substitution languages.  Those would be reasonable
> candidates for getting called with non-explicit extensions.
>
> But then anything linked from within them would again be a candidate 
> for
> using non-explicit extensions.

Untranslated pages are currently generated from english sources. So 
there's a file "duplication": two equal xxx.html and xxx.LANG.html 
files. No need to fallback then.