Walter Bright Wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > I didn't see any of the glitchiness or google-translate stuff that other people saw (on IE7, FF2, or Iron). Although, from the screenshot someone else posted of the translate-bar, I'm glad it's not showing up for me. (I really wish people would stop loading up their pages with Google's crap.)
> 
> I like the translate widget! I've always been enamored with the idea of a universal translator.

Unfortunately a lot of the translator's output ends up being quite comedical. It tends to mix up past tense, future tense, and sometimes leaves the output in English. In other cases some words tend to have multiple meaning in other languages and depend on context in order to be translated.

But I think this is almost always the case with technical documentation.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On a side note, I've noticed on other websites that Google Translation doesn't attempt to translate code inside a <code> element. So I would suggest the website uses <pre><code> ... </code></pre> for its code blocks, and <code>...</code> for keywords and other code-related terms in the text. That could actually make the translation useful.
>>
>> This must be new, it didn't use to do that. I'll take advantage of it!
> 
> Sadly, it doesn't work, as it strips all the newlines out, putting your code all on one line. Bah :-(

How about nesting them the other way around? <code><pre>...</pre></code>?

Andrei

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i0nula$bk7$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I didn't see any of the glitchiness or google-translate stuff that other people saw (on IE7, FF2, or Iron). Although, from the screenshot someone else posted of the translate-bar, I'm glad it's not showing up for me. (I really wish people would stop loading up their pages with Google's crap.)
>
> I like the translate widget! I've always been enamored with the idea of a universal translator.

There are browser plugins and websites that can handle translation of *any* page, not just pages that the page author has manually embedded it into. And they do it without gunking up the page with unnecessary JS bloat that not everyone's going to need.

-------------------------------
Not sent from an iPhone.

On 2010-07-03 20.06, Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On a side note, I've noticed on other websites that Google
>>> Translation doesn't attempt to translate code inside a <code>
>>> element. So I would suggest the website uses <pre><code> ...
>>> </code></pre> for its code blocks, and <code>...</code> for keywords
>>> and other code-related terms in the text. That could actually make
>>> the translation useful.
>>
>> This must be new, it didn't use to do that. I'll take advantage of it!
>
> Sadly, it doesn't work, as it strips all the newlines out, putting your
> code all on one line. Bah :-(

Sounds like you're missing the pre tags.

-- 
Jacob Carlborg

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:i0o227$gr0$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i0nula$bk7$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> I didn't see any of the glitchiness or google-translate stuff that other people saw (on IE7, FF2, or Iron). Although, from the screenshot someone else posted of the translate-bar, I'm glad it's not showing up for me. (I really wish people would stop loading up their pages with Google's crap.)
>>
>> I like the translate widget! I've always been enamored with the idea of a universal translator.
>
> There are browser plugins and websites that can handle translation of *any* page, not just pages that the page author has manually embedded it into. And they do it without gunking up the page with unnecessary JS bloat that not everyone's going to need.
>

I'll put it this way: the current trend of embedding features (like translation, or forcing videos to be viewed in a *specific* player, or "add to POS social-networking-site-of-the-month" links) put the web squarely in the exact same position that desktop applications were in back in the old DOS days when everything had to include it's own audio/video drivers and copy-paste didn't work across apps. This is just a modern parallel to that. Except the difference is, in this case, the infrastructure to do it the right way (ie, orthogonally) is already there and people are just choosing to do it the wrong way (ie, piecemeal).

On 2010-07-03 14:06:26 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> said:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On a side note, I've noticed on other websites that Google Translation doesn't attempt to translate code inside a <code> element. So I would suggest the website uses <pre><code> ... </code></pre> for its code blocks, and <code>...</code> for keywords and other code-related terms in the text. That could actually make the translation useful.
>> 
>> This must be new, it didn't use to do that. I'll take advantage of it!
> 
> Sadly, it doesn't work, as it strips all the newlines out, putting your code all on one line. Bah :-(

The problem is that the translator strips the line breaks. But that's still an improvement over the older "translated" code, where half the identifiers are changed, braces are changed to parenthesis and some newlines are removed randomly.

I suggest you add <code> anyway. At least this way Google can improve their translator engine and it'll then work fine.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

On 07/02/2010 06:16 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:
> On 7/2/10, Walter Bright<newshound2@digitalmars.com>  wrote:
>> What browser are you using? In IE it renders well, and I'm picky about that
>> sort of thing.
>
> I tried both Konqueror and Firefox and found the body text to look
> bad, worse in Firefox (probably because I set konqueror to ignore font
> sizes specified in websites, but the color there didn't make me happy
> either).
>
> On Internet Explorer, the size looks OK, but the menu text has poor
> contrast. The mouse hover color looks better than the regular color.

I'm using Firefox without problems in reading the text (on Linux), but... well...

The design certainly looks more elegant, but it feels "noisier", and it feels like it would take more time to locate the information one was looking for.

This looks more like a marketing publication, and those things aren't designed to convey much information.  Just the feel of information.

I think there's a good reason that manuals are traditionally as simple as possible, and it's to cut down on the time it takes to recognize what you're looking for.

Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Unfortunately a lot of the translator's output ends up being quite comedical.
> It tends to mix up past tense, future tense, and sometimes leaves the output
> in English. In other cases some words tend to have multiple meaning in other
> languages and depend on context in order to be translated.
> 
> But I think this is almost always the case with technical documentation.

I know the translations leave a lot to be desired. But I've often found them good enough to figure out what is going on.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i0nula$bk7$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> I didn't see any of the glitchiness or google-translate stuff that other people saw (on IE7, FF2, or Iron). Although, from the screenshot someone else posted of the translate-bar, I'm glad it's not showing up for me. (I really wish people would stop loading up their pages with Google's crap.)
>> I like the translate widget! I've always been enamored with the idea of a universal translator.
> 
> There are browser plugins and websites that can handle translation of *any* page, not just pages that the page author has manually embedded it into. And they do it without gunking up the page with unnecessary JS bloat that not everyone's going to need.

I understand your point, I just like to have it right there, and not have to go get toolbars and plugins for every browser I use. Also, nobody ever complained about it before - why now is it suddenly an issue?

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>>> On a side note, I've noticed on other websites that Google Translation doesn't attempt to translate code inside a <code> element. So I would suggest the website uses <pre><code> ... </code></pre> for its code blocks, and <code>...</code> for keywords and other code-related terms in the text. That could actually make the translation useful.
>>>
>>> This must be new, it didn't use to do that. I'll take advantage of it!
>>
>> Sadly, it doesn't work, as it strips all the newlines out, putting your code all on one line. Bah :-(
> 
> How about nesting them the other way around? <code><pre>...</pre></code>?

I tried that, too. It recognizes the newlines, and then translates the code. Back to square 1.