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:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: 28 July 2008 22:02 To: Rodolfo M. Raya; email@example.com 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:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:53 PM To: email@example.com 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.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