OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC

 View Only

Re: [xliff] xLiff and Interoperability

  • 1.  Re: [xliff] xLiff and Interoperability

    Posted 03-06-2002 13:46
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    xliff message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: Re: [xliff] xLiff and Interoperability


     
    Wouldn't every parser parse everything in a given XLIFF file anyway? 
     
    The elements a given tool chooses to display to a user is pretty much context dependent.  So following on from Enda's comment can we say that "if a given attribute is in the XLIFF then we should simply require that a tools implementation parse it , but that we don't require the tool to have specific methods to operate upon it". 
     
    Tools that don't process a given tag, entity or attribute should be obliged to write out exactly what they read in if they don't operate on the content specifically!

    Steve.
     
     
     
     
    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., a leading provider of Net business solutions
    http://www.novell.com
    >>> Enda McDonnell <EndaMcD@alchemysoftware.ie> 03/06/02 06:09 >>>
    Hi All,


    xLiff is young at this stage and perhaps the interoperability Eric asked
    about has not yet been proven; many tools have not had time to endorse it
    fully. However, the use of TMX between tools is a good example of the
    interoperability that can be achieved with xLiff as it is.

    TMX, which has many of the same interoperability limitations we are
    discussing wrt xLiff 1.0, has been used to great effect between tools.
    There are many examples where localisation data has been transferred between
    tools. The stronger commercially available localisation tools now support
    TMX. While that support is to differing levels, it proves that the tools
    can work with the flexibility that has been built into TMX and the current
    xLiff spec.



    Regarding interoperability, there are certain key pieces of data such as
    source and target text, parts of speech, translator notes, etc that are
    critical to all stages of the localisation process and need to be fully
    understandable by all consumers of xliff. There is other data that is
    completely specific to the author of the xliff file and is irrelevant to
    other users. Examples might be database unique keys from where the text
    came, or specific workflow paths within an organisation. These do not need
    to be understood by everyone, yet absolutely need to be catered for in this
    format.

    I don't believe that a flexible attribute such as 'ts', which xliff uses for
    this type of information, prevents interoperability. This may not be the
    best way of providing flexibility, but we need to understand that if this
    format is supposed to span the entire localisation process for any
    organisation, we need to provide a mechanism that allows users include
    proprietory information that is simply maintained by consuming applications
    that do not understand it.

    I am very much in favour of interoperability and tightly specifying as much
    as possible in xLiff 1.1, but I feel some flexibiltiy would promote the
    format greater adoption in the industry.


    Regards,
    Enda





    -----Original Message-----
    From: Friedman, Eric [ mailto:eric@ConveySoftware.com]
    Sent: 06 March 2002 15:16
    To: 'Peter Reynolds '; ' xliff@lists.oasis-open.org '
    Subject: RE: [xliff] Minutes of the XLIFF TC March 5th. 2002


    Hi folks,

    On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Peter Reynolds wrote:

    > I share your frustration with people describing the current spec as
    > unworkable. We are also working with XLIFF and doing fine on the current
    > spec. Considerable work went into achieving the 1.0 spec and I don't think
    > it is helpful for that to be dismissed.

    No one has "dismissed" the work that has been done up to date. I can
    only speak for myself on this subject, but if I thought the current
    document was worthless, I wouldn't have bothered to get involved.

    I've heard from several people that they have working implementations
    of the current specification. I think that's a terrific indicator that
    things are going well. However, I have >not< heard from anyone who
    has successfully done work using their tools in combination with
    those produced by someone else in the group without access to information
    beyond the contents of the shared spec.

    The abstract of the spec is very clear on this point: "The purpose of
    this format is to store localisable data and carry it from one step of
    the localisation process to the other, while allowing interoperability
    between tools."

    Has someone achieved that "interoperability between tools"? That's
    what I want to see happen, because it has much more value than
    yet another format that only works with tools from this-or-that
    vendor.

    Eric

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl >

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl >


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC