|
While the idea of Tool-Company may be worth exploring, this
for me is an attribute of the tool itself.
From my own experience with commercial tools such as ******
(don't want to get into trouble!), there have been differences in word counts
reported in revisions of the same major version of the product anf that's why
it's important to capture - in a structured fashion - version information.
This kind of issues is not isolated as tools evolve and content changes but is
particularly troublesome when one creates a localisation budget but our
partner's budget is 10% more (10% could be a substantial amount of
money).
Perhaps we might explore this kind of thing with a view to
"XLIFF Certification of Tools" with some kind of logo branding programme -
standardisation on naming would be part of this branding - this is not unusual
in IT. HTML editors, for example, stamp their content in a wildly
diverse but readable way (i.e., a Javascript can use this fact to react to HTML
for specific rendering purposes).
Tools that are certified are registered (alongside including
version/service release/service pack information, tools vendor and perhaps some
description of the counting algorithm). Those that are not certified -
well, you've just got to take your chances. This is also a good
opportunity to advertise XLIFF...
Just a thought... Might be a little off topic!!
S.
S t e p h e n
H o l m e s
Localisation Development Manager
International Product Development
Voice: +353 (1) 241 5732
Fax: +353 (1) 241
5749
Novell, Inc., THE leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com>>> Enda
McDonnell < EndaMcD@alchemysoftware.ie> 04/15/02 10:28 >>> Hi, In the current specification, the tool attribute is free text, the 1.0
spec says that it "is used to specify the signature and version of the tool
that created or modified the document". However, this mechanism is a
bit loose and open to mis-use. For example, a tool may omit the version
number. Including tool-name and tool-version attributes in the next version
would be a better solution. Regarding a tools registry, I don't think we
could limit the names to a standard list. The hope is that as many tools as
possible will use this xliff format. Is it necessary to have a naming
convention for tool names? A convention is too easy to ignore, I think the
best solution may be to introduce another attribute, tool-company. This way
a tool can be clearly defined as tool-company = ACME tool-name =
Killer App tool-version = 4.0 and not in a confusing manner such as tool = ACME Killer or tool = ACME Ltd. Killer 4 or tool
= ACME, Killer App or tool = ACME Ltd., Killer App 4.0 I will
write this up in more detail and propose these additions to the TC for the
next release of xliff. Enda
This thread already has a best answer. Would you like to mark this message as the new best answer?
|