Excellent, I have checked it and it is perfect. Congratulations, it is not an easy job!
If I notice an html problem (in this case, a missing
</gloss> end tag), should I make a note of it somehow (e.g. Needs work)?
If you’re confident that you can fix it, please go ahead. If not, then yes, mark it “Needs Work”.
Having said which, I thought we had checked the HTML with Tidy. Can you show me the problem?
The missing end tag shows up later, so it is not in fact an html error, per se, but a usage that is not as intended.
<p><a class="pts-cs" id="Bu-Pc.54.2"></a><a class="pts-cs" id="Bu-Pc.54.2.1">Bu-Pc.54.2.1</a><a class="wt-pa">1049</a><term>Disrespectful</term>: <gloss>there are two kinds of disrespect: disrespect for the person and disrespect for the rule. <a class="wt-pa">1050</a><term>Disrespect for the person</term>: <gloss>if, <a class="pts-vp-en" id="BD.2.394">BD.2.394</a> when he is spoken to by one who is fully ordained about a rule that has been laid down, he thinks, “They have been suspended/they have been reproved/they have been censured; I won’t do what they say,” and he acts disrespectfully, then he commits an offense entailing confession.</gloss> <a class="wt-pa">1051</a><term>Disrespect for the rule</term>: <gloss>if, when is spoken to by one who is fully ordained about a rule that has been laid down, he thinks, “What can be done so that this rule is lost/perishes/disappears,” or he does not want to train in that rule, and he acts disrespectfully, then he commits an offense entailing confession.</gloss></gloss></p>
EDIT: and yes I am confident I can fix it.
Ahh, okay. In that case, please go ahead and correct it.
I ran across another case of nested gloss elements. It appears to be intentional - when the enclosed definitions are refinements of the enclosing definition. I don’t know how these elements are rendered in regard to css, but I’m guessing that it is simply font style and such nesting is not useful to indicate definition refinement. I can unnest it as I did before, but I thought I should ask first, since removing it is a loss of information. A suggestion: perhaps such refining definitions should be indented?
<p><a class="wt-pa">1144</a><term>Transfers</term>: <gloss>there are two kinds of transfer: transfer face-to-face and transfer in the absence of. <a class="wt-pa">1145</a><term>Transfer face-to-face</term>: <gloss>one should say, “I transfer this robe-cloth to you/to so-and-so.”</gloss> <a class="wt-pa">1146</a><term>Transfer in the absence of</term>: <gloss>one should say, “I give this robe-cloth to you for the purpose of transfer.” The other should ask, “Who is your friend or companion?” One should reply, “So-and-so and so-and-so.” The other should say, “I give it to them. Please use their property, give it away, or do as you like with it.”</gloss></gloss></p>
Other than this question of nested gloss elements, I have finished Pacittiya 51-60 . I will be on retreat from Oct 11 until Oct. 24, so there is no rush in getting new material to me
I spoke with Brahmali about this: please leave everything as it was. The nested elements are supposed to be nested; it’s part of the structure of the text. We’ll look in more detail at how they should be handled, but for now they’re fine as is.
Well done. Once you got going, you really got going, which is great!
I would suggest you contact me once you know you are ready to continue. I prefer to have as little down time as possible between sending you the text and the text getting uploaded to Pootle. I certainly do not want to rush you, but at the same time I don’t want to make things difficult for myself. So I am just trying to find that middle way so hard to achieve.
Also, if you ever only have a short period in which you can work on Pootle, you are welcome to specify to me how many rules you want to receive, so as to enable you to finish the work within that period. Again, this is just to make things a bit more efficient.
And please let me know if there is anything I can do to make your life easier. Life should be easy, you know. Or at last as easy as possible.
Lastly, as Bhante Sujato already mentioned, the gloss within a gloss was actually a deliberate structure to match the structure of the Pali. It would be good if you could leave that as it was, and we can figure out later on how implement it.
And most important of all, enjoy your retreat!
OK, I put the first nested gloss back in and removed the “Needs work” from the second. I’m handing off set 51-60 now, and signing off until after the retreat. Talk to you again in a couple of weeks.
So… I’m slowly coming back to the Vinaya now, taking some time to get familiar with Pootle. I’ve checked this thread from where I last left it and hope I got everything right. I’m starting with Pc 71 now.
Bhante @sujato, can you please check?
Why can’t I log out from Pootle any more? It only refreshes the page instead.
Try requesting a new password?
It happens to me every now and then when I shift computers.
Normally there’s no need to log out.
I can and have. It looks great, the segments are matching up nicely.
Thanks, then I can go ahead.
One question however: How can I activate the Pali lookup tool in Pootle?
Unfortunately you can’t; it is currently broken, and we won’t be fixing it until the shift to Bilara. Sorry about that!
Thanks for informing. Otherwise I tend to think it’s just me who can’t figure it out…
To Ajahn @brahmali: Monks’ Pc 71 and 72 are done. The rest until Pc 82 will follow very soon.
In Ajahn @brahmali’s translation it says:
<term>Monk</term>: <gloss>… The monk who has been given the full ordination by a complete Order through a procedure consisting of one motion and three announcements that is unchallengeable and fit to stand—this sort of monk is meant in this case.</gloss></p>
for the Pali:
bhikkhū ti … pe … ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhūti.
The Pali is more abbreviated than the English.
So far I have inserted the lengthier explanation into the second segment, like:
The monk who has been given the full ordination by a complete Order through a procedure consisting of one motion and three announcements that is unchallengeable and fit to stand—this sort of monk is meant in this case.</gloss></p>
Is this OK, or should I rather put the part
The monk who has been given the full ordination by a complete Order through a procedure consisting of one motion and three announcements that is unchallengeable and fit to stand— into the first segment?
No, please continue as you have been doing, it seems like the best way.