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
>