[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-users] Anyone know of an overview/evaluation of toolssupporting XLIFF?
Hi Yves, Thanks a lot for comprehensive and clear answers! :) BR /Fredrik (btw, I did look at Swordfish - but what threw me there was that you had to enable tag protection explicitly (default was not to protect)) -----Original Message----- From: Yves Savourel [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: den 21 mars 2011 15:25 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: [xliff-users] Anyone know of an overview/evaluation of tools supporting XLIFF? Hi Fredrik, > Does anyone know of an overview/evaluation of tools > supporting XLIFF including the level of support? As for info on XLIFF tools: there is a good list of tools and features put together by Micah Bly for the XLIFF Symposium, here: http://www.localisation.ie/xliff/resources/presentations/xliff_tools_matrix_20100922.numbers.pdf > 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). That's correct. > 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 guess you are not looking at tool with proper XLIFF support, or XLIFF support at all. Quite a few of the main commercial tools do support this correctly: Trados TagEditor has a DTD Settings for XLIFF that does properly set all you need to edit XLIFF, as long as you have the source text copied in <target>. Trados Studio support <ph> well too. Swordfish has no problem with <ph> tags. MemoQ is also fine with <ph> tags, etc. Several open-source tools are also supporting properly XLIFF: OmegaT has no problem with <ph> tags for example. The only tools that does not support <ph> properly among the XLIFF tools I know is the Open Language Tool XLIFF editor. > ...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? There is no official "compliance test" for XLIFF tools. But <ph> support is pretty basic stuff. I would be complaining loudly to the tool vendor if they say they support XLIFF and do not support <ph> elements. Hope this helps. -yves --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org