231355 - translated webpages of mozilla.org are hosted elsewere

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Description

[Jan M]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

I Think it is very good and important that the website is translated.
At least the start pages. But if noticed that this translations are hosted
elsewere on the net and not on the mozilla website. This might look a bit
inconsequent to the end-user. 
If you comapare this to comercial software or other opensource projects: in most
(nearly all) cases the are hosted on the same server (at least the share one TLD)



Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Daniel Wang]

just send a message to a bunch of what I hope to be contact persons for Mozilla
doc localization.

We should consider hosting localization on mozilla.org if most doc translators
and writers support this. At the minimum, we need a QA contact and an editor for
every language we host on mozilla.org. QAs ensure that bug reports are assigned
to the appropriate persons. Editors ensure that the writing style, markup, and
content of translations are consistent; specifically, all translations, since
they will be "new" docs, must confirm to www.mozilla.org/README-style.html

As with bug 229863, I am uncomfortable about hosting contents from other sites
due to the following issues:
1. mozilla.org is a large mess. I count 365MB for my partial pull of webtree
content. Much of the content are in need of updates. For example, nearly all QA
docs are outdated. File and link structure also need to be cleaned up.
2. Translations and originals may quickly get out of sync. If the content is
hosted somewhere else, we can execuse ourselves for any inconsistancy. If the
content is hosted on m.o, we don't have such luxury. We must secure committment
from translators.
3. The Mozilla community is more than mozilla.org. We shouldn't expect
everything to revolve around mozilla.org. I personally would like to see more
personal and community sites, not less.
4. End-user doc writers are part of marketing. This means 101 Things Mozilla
Does but IE Doesn't, as it is written now, is out of limit. Are all doc writers
willing to submit themselves to mozilla.org's marketing and writing guidelines?

Comment 2

[Jan M]

There are disadvantages of hosting ist else were,too.
1. Hosting them on m.o. looks much more professional. We plan to focus on the
end-user. The end-user might wonder why it is hosted elsewhere.
2. Some localizations are hosted at mozdev.org. This side is very slow (because
of overload I belive)

Comment 3

[Adam Pribyl]

As the one who deals with mozilla.org texts I really miss some kind of system
for doc on mozilla.org. Do I miss some important subpart of m.o or texts are
really published mostly "by hand".. Am I right or there is something, that
translators of site doc can use? Without this I do not think this is good idea.

Comment 4

[Daniel Wang]

> As the one who deals with mozilla.org texts I really miss some kind of system
> for doc on mozilla.org. Do I miss some important subpart of m.o or texts are
> really published mostly "by hand".. Am I right or there is something, that
> translators of site doc can use? Without this I do not think this is good
> idea.

Well, apart from Edit this Page link and Document History link, I don't think
there is any management tool. The site now also support .htaccess for setting
document language, that that requires the use of CVS.

From the feedbacks I get, some l10n teams are planning to organize themselves in
separate projects. Because of this, and without direct request from l10n team,
we need to put this on hold. For now, let's start with linking to international
pages (in bug 221162) and see what that leads to.

moz.org bugs don't have Future target milestone, so -> wontfix

l10n team who wish to have mozilla.org host content please file a bug specific
to their locale/language.