[xliff-tools] PO Representation Guide: The PO Header

[Rodolfo M. Raya]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 21:08 +0100, Josep Condal wrote:
> Hi Rodolfo,

Hi,
 
 
> How about if instead of the "approved" attribute we use the
> "translated" attribute?

That could also be OK. The key here is to use a boolean attribute.


> I I understand it right, the actual transition of the approved
> attribute from approved="no" to approved="yes" seems to be reserved
> for a second person, who reviews the translation of the translator who
> makes the transition from translated="no" to translated="yes".

In essence, that is how translation projects are usually handled by
translation agencies. Translators confirm that at their best knowledge
the translation is OK, but the final approval is in the hands of the
project manager.

>  Obviously, if the translation project is not to be reviewed by a
> second person, the translator can directly approve his own
> translations as a shortcut.

You are right. The fact that most often translators dealing with PO
files are the ones that mark a translation as approved makes the use of
the translate attribute a little bit redundant.

> Still I think there must be some way to indicate that it is a fuzzy
> match at file generation time from a filter's point if view,

>From the filter's point of view there is no need to indicate that a
match is fuzzy at generation time. Translations are supposed to review
the complete file and fix errors in segments that may have been marked
as correct previously by mistake.

Additionally, after XLIFF generation there is further processing, like
adding translations from TM. A segment marked as "new" by the converter
can receive a 100% match from TM and the "state" attribute could be set
to "translated". That's OK and that's beyond the reach of the PO->XLIFF
filter.

What is important is to know if the translation should or should not be
set to fuzzy when the XLIFF file is converted to PO. To do so, a boolean
value is essential.

> In the case of a fuzzy in the PO file:
> translated="no"
> approved="no"
> state="needs-translation"
> state-qualifier="fuzzy-match"
>  
> In the case of a translated item in the PO file:
>  
> translated="yes"
> approved="no"
> state="needs-review-translation"
> state-qualifier="exact-match"

The values of "state" and "state-qualifier" attributes are not boolean
and depend on the editor used to translate the file. 

After translation you can have the following perfectly valid situation:

        translated="yes"
        approved="yes"
        state="final"
        state-qualifier="leveraged-inherited"
        
Only "approve" and "translated" can be used to determine for sure if the
segment state is fuzzy or not. 

What should the XLIFF->PO filter do with a segment with translated set
to "yes" and "approve" set to no? Tricky problem and exactly the reason
why I would base the decision in only one attribute.

There are several editors now in the market that handle XLIFF files.
Each editor uses the available attributes in a different way. It is
essential to avoid ambiguities, restricting dependencies in attribute
values to the minimum. 

Regards,
Rodolfo
-- 
Rodolfo M. Raya <rodolfo at heartsome.net>
Heartsome Holdings Pte. Ltd.