RE: [xliff-users] Anyone know of an overview/evaluation of toolssupporting XLIFF?

["Folkeryd, Fredrik" <Fredrik.Folkeryd@sonyericsson.com>]

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:yves@opentag.com] 
Sent: den 21 mars 2011 15:25
To: xliff-users@lists.oasis-open.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: xliff-users-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-users-help@lists.oasis-open.org