[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Anyone know of an overview/evaluation of tools supporting XLIFF?
Does anyone know of an overview/evaluation of tools supporting XLIFF including the level of support?
The background is we need to know which way forward would be more reasonable short-term, to ensure translation providers hit the ground running with the files we provide.
For instance, it is my understanding that a <ph> element contains not translatable content, and consequently one would expect tools that claim support for XLIFF to protect such elements automatically (to prevent editing). However, all the tools I’ve looked at so far (as far as I can tell), do not protect the content (some seem to support post-edit verification of matching tags). I’ve been reading the standard over and over and I cannot figure out why one would make the content of a ph element editable in a tool. So, I’m wondering if I’ve misunderstood something completely. Or is it completely up to tools developers to interpret what “supporting XLIFF” means? If not, what is the prerequisite/mechanism for tools developers to claim “accredited” compliance with the standard?