Opportunity for the XLIFF promotional team? (RE: [xliff] Articlethat men

xliff message

Subject: Opportunity for the XLIFF promotional team? (RE: [xliff] Articlethat mentions XLIFF)

I finally got time to read the article you brought to our attention (http://www.thecontentwrangler.com/article/xliffwhere_for_art_thou/). I found it interesting. The article makes seemingly favorable mention of the XLIFF standard, and even the TC. The author says "As far as I am concerned it is a fine standard and appears to be getting the requisite attention from the XLIFF Technical Committee."

But the focus of the article is about where localization standards and practices should fit on the radar of the CMS tool makers. A few of us (David, Andrzej, myself) have been debating this (via a thread I started on my perception of the blurring of the lines between CMS and TMS, on a TMS group on linked in).

The mention of the localization community needing a "hook" into CMS systems, ". . . most CMS developers recognize that they must offer hooks for localization, i.e. an easy way for localization vendors to easily access content within the authoring-to-publishing workflow," got me to thinking. This seems like a good area for the owners of the XLIFF promotional effort to sink their teeth into (David, Peter). Promoting as the interchange format the CMS vendors use might be a really good fit. Or another way of looking at it, if the CMS vendors mistakenly use some proprietary hook, instead of XLIFF as a localization interchange format, it might be a missed opportunity for the localization community.

Subject: Article that mentions XLIFF

From: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:38:28 -0300

Hi all,

The follow article may be of your interest:

http://www.thecontentwrangler.com/article/xliffwhere_for_art_thou/

Best regards,
Rodolfo
-- 
Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
http://www.maxprograms.com