-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Translation issue and question about "Arrangement of tables and/or illustrations" #369
Comments
We need to listen to opinions from Taiwan. @bobbytung? Any comment on this suggestion? |
在台灣,對於表格的「行」與「列」沒有明確規定,僅有一句「直行橫列」的口訣。 後來以公文書為主,文件改為橫排後,對於表格的「行」與「列」沒有進一步的規定。所以基本上無論內文文字為直排還是橫排,我想行(由上而下)與列(直排由右而左/橫排由左而右),稱呼不會變。 而以現在的辦公軟體,如Pages, Number, Excel等,多用「直欄」與「橫列」為術語。 台灣的用法,可以這則連結中的解釋作為代表的範例: |
其实这个主要是提出该段完全无法理解的问题。我的猜测是原本该段是要表达表格内的标题栏目和/或表格外的标题应该放置的位置,但是中英表述互相矛盾。
|
Discussions in yesterday's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-clreq-minutes.html#t08 |
From the discussion it seems that the direction of 行 and 列 is fixed per region as most people do not change their current writing direction anymore and thus the terms are stuck regionally. Here is the fix I propose: (New paragraph)
Line 1226 in d4cf486
Line 1231 in d4cf486
|
Discussions in yesterday's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2021/10/13-clreq-minutes.html#t09 |
@NightFurySL2001 感谢反馈!请问我们如何在致谢里称呼您? |
谢谢。您可以使用”NFSL2001“称呼。 |
New comments added in #400 . |
Discussions in yesterday's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2021/12/17-clreq-minutes.html#t02 |
目前文档 2.4.2 一节中的第 3 项,表述方式和术语使用不够明晰。结合 12 月 17 日 CLReq 例会讨论,尝试按如下方向改拟:
试改拟如下(简体中文版)—— 2.4.2 横排与直排的主要差异点直排与横排的主要差异点,列举如下:
|
@realfish 针对新建议的 2.4.2 第4点的note,建议加上两点:
|
感谢 @NightFurySL2001 的反馈,几点说明如下:
NOTE 中的内容仅用于补充说明「行」「列」这两个中文术语在现状下存在的分歧问题。 如果我们采纳「逻辑行」「逻辑列」的表述(最终术语名称可能尚待编辑组讨论),那么中文「行」「列」的历史情况,实际上跟本文档没有直接关系。 在采用逻辑方向的前提下,行、列的行进方向实际上由书写模式决定。因而,中文表格逻辑行、逻辑列的视觉方向可由具体排版环境中的书写模式直接推断。逻辑方向和书写模式本身,W3C 已有 spec 描述,并且这些 spec 已经覆盖了比中文横排、直排更全面的书写模式。——是否需要在 CLReq 中明确地引用相关 spec,可以另行讨论。
同上,逻辑方向和书写模式的定义,已覆盖中文横排和中文竖排中的具体方向。——CLReq 可以进一步考虑,是否需要对逻辑方向做出更详细的阐释。 作为参考,CSS Grid 中的 row 和 column,跟表格中逻辑行、逻辑列的方向规则是一致的:https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Grid_Layout/CSS_Grid_Logical_Values_and_Writing_Modes |
In 2.4.2 (3)(1 and 2), the translation for the sub points are weird and labelled "Check this translation". However, there is a bigger confusion arises from these line.
clreq/index.html
Line 1226 in d4cf486
clreq/index.html
Line 1231 in d4cf486
In Chinese, there are two terms that can be used to describe a table: 行 and 列. The corresponding terms in English are "row" and "column". However, in different regions, the Chinese terms are used differently: in China, 行 refers to row and 列 refers to column; in Taiwan however, 列 refers to row and 行 refers to column. (Reference) This might causes issues when trying to describe how tables are arranged across different regions. My understanding is that 行 usually goes in the same direction as the general writing direction, while 列 is perpendicular to the direction of writing. For the ease of understanding, I have made this following diagram:
This will involve how the terms in English should be mapped: either the row/header are described in terms of relative writing direction, or in terms of absolute direction. I would prefer the terms in English to be described in terms of relative writing direction, thus 列 will always be translated to column, while 行 will always be translated to row with no regards to the writing direction. Why? If absolute directions are used (i.e. row = horizontal, column = vertical), the direction of increment for row (horizontal) will be in the opposite direction when in vertical writing mode (列 goes from right to left).
Also, the section title was "Arrangement of tables and/or illustrations."/"表格、图片等标题栏的位置" which we should expect any descriptions about the title itself.
Thus, my suggestions for the translation fixes are as follow:
clreq/index.html
Line 1226 in d4cf486
clreq/index.html
Line 1231 in d4cf486
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: