[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has signed on to the XLIFF standard "
Hi Mary, Thanks for this. I think Rodolfo has given some very good reasons why we might be interested in doing this. What is the policy you are referring to? Is there some document on this? I think it makes sense for us to discuss this further and come to a conclusion on how we should proceed. Thanks, Peter. -----Original Message----- From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:25 PM To: 'Tony Jewtushenko'; Peter Reynolds; 'Rodolfo M. Raya'; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; jamie.clark@oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has signed on to the XLIFF standard " Hi all, Just chiming in -- any submission to any other Standards Organization *must* be done via OASIS and not by members of the TC. There is a Policy (Liaison) that talks about this, including (OASIS) Board approval. If you think XLIFF is ready to go to ISO then may I suggest you review the policy and then we can set up a call to discuss and walk through the various steps? I'd be happy to arrange a call whenever you're ready! Best regards, Mary > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Jewtushenko [mailto:tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:15 PM > To: 'Peter Reynolds'; 'Rodolfo M. Raya'; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has > signed on to the XLIFF standard " > > I think Rodolfo's suggestion is a very good one - it will mean that > whenever > there is a need to for governments to interchange localization related > data, > the ISO standard must be used first, before any other standard (e.g., > proprietary). > > Peter - there should be no problem with getting XLIFF approved by ISO even > though it is an OASIS standard already. At the Language Standards > conference in Berlin a few years ago, we were invited to submit to ISO. > Also, there are a number of UNICODE related standards adopted as ISO > standards as well - suggesting that there is no standards body redundancy > limitation for ISO approval. I'm not sure ISO 37 is the right place to > bring XLIFF though, but it is worth a shot. > > I'll look up the contact's name (although it will take a bit of effort to > find it). > > Cheers, > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Reynolds [mailto:p.reynolds@maart.pl] > Sent: 28 July 2008 22:02 > To: Rodolfo M. Raya; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has > signed on to the XLIFF standard " > > Hi Rodolfo, > > I have just been nominated as an Irish expert to ISO TC 37 which is the > main > committee looking at translation issues. I will be going to the ISO meeting > in Moscow in a few weeks time. I think there may be an understanding > between > ISO, OASIS and other standards body where they cooperate rather than > compete. I don't know whether ISO will work on a standard that is already > being developed at OASIS. I am away this week but I suggest that you and I > have a phone call next week and have a short discussion on this and come up > with a proposal for how the TC could approach ISO. > > Thanks, > > Peter. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:53 PM > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has > signed on to the XLIFF standard " > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:20:01 +0200 > "Peter Reynolds" <p.reynolds@maart.pl> wrote: > > > I had a look at this blog and they appear to be talking about a > > presentation by Jost Zetzsche. While I was not at the conference, I know > > Jost very well. He regularly asks the question 'Why isn't everyone using > > XLIFF?'. He is likely to be suggesting that translation companies should > > be much more enthusiastic about XLIFF. I understand the point that most > > of the big translation companies are actually using XLIFF and many were > > involved in creating the standard (Lionbridge, SDL, Moravia) but I think > > a more important point is being raised here about the bind which > > translation companies have when it comes to technology. > > Hi, > > Jost's public idea of compatibility between tools is based on how well > translation tools can handle "uncleaned" RTF, TTX and TMX files. He > wrote about this in "Translation Journal" and talks about this in his > blog. This is part of his business strategy: he sells comparisons of > translation tools based on these parameters at > http://www.translatorstraining.com . > > Translation agencies have a key role in XLIFF adoption. Most of them > are still working with "uncleaned" RTF and steadily moving to TTX > files. They have not adopted XLIFF yet and I don't see them adopting > XLIFF soon. The reason is simple: their current tool providers don't > care about XLIFF and heavily promote their own formats. > > There is something that can change the panorama: making XLIFF an ISO > standard. This will make XLIFF visible to governments and could help in > its adoption. > > Best regards, > Rodolfo > -- > Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> > http://www.maxprograms.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]