RE: [xliff] RE: "none of the market leader TenT companies has signed on to the XLIFF standard "

["Peter Reynolds" <p.reynolds@maart.pl>]

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