[xliff-tools] XLIFF usage

[Stephen Holmes]

Hi Josep,

Steve is fine (only my mum calls me Stephen!)



On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:38 +0200, Josep Condal wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> My definition is that it intends to be a common denominator for any
> format containing textual information (which means round-trip filters
> with the home formats) placed right at the door of the translation
> process so that CAT (Computer Aided Translation) tools can be more
> easily leveraged across formats (i.e. a new home-made format can easily
> join the regular process as soon as a safe round-trip filter exists for
> it).
> 

So here's my dilemma.  We currently have tools  that extract
translatable content from whichever file formats we're interested in.
So, I take a PO for example, it gets parsed (LEX/YACC) and then
translated within a tools environment.  The complexities of the
meta-data schema are hidden (as it should be) and the parser also comes
with a generator to create the translated output format - end to end
process.  The database format might proprietary or represented in XLIFF
but the interface to this data would be open.  

I've understood your comments correctly, then in the "new world order",
I'd do this....

[ Develop ]-->Src PO-->XLIFF-->[ Translation ]--> Tgt PO-->[ Test ]

But in the current model it would be...

   [ Develop ]-->Src PO-->[ Translation ]-->Tgt PO-->[ Test ]

So now, I have to create a PO parser AND a forward and reversion XLIFF
to PO transformer.

Seems like I have to do more work.  I do however see the benefit in
having, say, an Alchemy Catalyst dump it's TTK format to XLIFF so I
could use the same translated content with gTranslator/KBabel or
whatever other GUI tool made use of XLIFF repository information.

> Human translation is a very expensive item and, with CAT technologies,
> savings in effort can occur in up to one order of magnitude compared to
> most brutal force approaches (inconvenient, low-productivity working
> environments, actual reuse (leverage of existing translations), etc). 
> 

Understood, absolutely, but isn't the value in XLIFF really to do with
helping me move my translated assets (with their meta data) between
systems rather than create yet another file format?  The benefit for me
is a loss-less transfer when  tooling technologies become available that
afford me a higher % and quality of leverage.

> Another very important advantage of XLIFF is that this format
> homogenization right at the entry/exit door of the localization process
> reduces dramatically the instruction set with the format particularities
> for the translators, project managers, and so on.
> 

My view would be that a good tools environment abstracts this complexity
anyway.  I certainly wouldn't send raw XLIFF out because I'd then have
to add LINT checks to the inbound materials.

> Please note that, in real life and not only with translation, the most
> followed instruction is that one that does not need to exist, so any
> simplification or improvement in that are that can take place with a
> highly tedious process has a big impact reducing costs and maximizing
> quality.
> 
> 

Oh so true!

> Regards,
> 
> Josep.
> 
> Josep Condal
> Managing Director
> ApSIC S.L.
> ---
> Caballero, 76 4-3
> 08029 Barcelona
> Spain
> 
> T: +34 93 405 11 00
> F: +34 93 430 81 77
> @: pcondal at apsic.com
> --- 
>  
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: xliff-tools-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org
> [mailto:xliff-tools-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] En nombre de Stephen
> Holmes
> Enviado el: martes, 12 de abril de 2005 11:02
> Para: XLIFF-Tools
> Asunto: [xliff-tools] XLIFF usage
> 
> All:
> 
> I've read the announcement of the XLIFF Tools Project
> (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtranslator-list/2005-January/msg00001.h
> tml) but I must admit to being confused about the ultimate intent of the
> the XLIFF effort.  Is it the intent of this working group to ultimately
> replace the various *nix file formats with XLIFF as a native resource
> file format or is it simply intended to be a round-trip container for
> use during the translation process.  Is it also being considered as a
> translation memory repository for use in the localisation process?
> 
> Seriously, how are you folks using it?
> 
> I know this may seem to be a naive question, but you'd be amazed at the
> different implementation approaches, opinions,  and thoughts that exist
> out there.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
> 
> Regards
> Steve.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xliff-tools mailing list
> xliff-tools at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xliff-tools
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xliff-tools/attachments/20050412/34585aa1/attachment.pgp