Re: [xliff-comment] Current status of XLIFF 2.0

[=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A5l_Eivind_J_Nes?= <pal.nes@gmail.com>]

2011/4/9 Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>:
> Hello Pål,
>
>> I was met here with enthusiasm for growing XLIFF into a successful
>> successor to TMX, and a format that would _finally_ interchange of
>> translations between tools.
>
> Glad to see the enthusiasm :)
>
> From my personal experience there are various tools that are managing to work quite well with the current versions of TMX and XLIFF and exchange data seamlessly. But I know it's not the cases for all, and both standards are certainly far from perfect. So I'm also looking forward to a nice and clean 2.0.

From my experience, it has not been seemless. TMX might have been a
good bet for a lot of people. But XLIFF has certainly not been there.
In my expectations there will be a definition for the XLIFF skeleton.

>
> It's interesting to see your mention of XLIFF as a successor to TMX. I don't think that is the current requirement for 2.0. I'd be interested in hearing any input on that aspect.

LISA is no more. Unless anyone picks up the standards and tries to
move it forward, I will consider it "barely useable for the future".
TMX has been one of the only working standards for a long time, but
there are limits as to how long we keep beating a dead horse. XLIFF is
so similar to TMX (and better) that I see it as a successor. Did not
mean for any feelings hurt, I'm just stating what is in my head :)

> It would be nice to have the active participation of more people in the TC (and SC). So, you feel so inclined, you should become member. Opera has probably already an OASIS membership.

Opera certainly loves opens standards, how else could we compete? On
the other hand, how does one participate as a private person without
selling your home?

-- 
Pål Eivind Jacobsen Nes
Epic rant guy