[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: XLIFF and TM, Glossary, Segmenation Rules - Was: RE: [xliff] ULI
HI Christian: Some comments to your comments: 1) The charter is outdated. It does not cover XLIFF 2.0. We have to change it anyway. 2) We have people in the TC with enough experience about TM and glossary data management. In any case, I already provided an actual Schema that contains the proposed changes; only TC review is remaining. 3) The changes I already proposed are based on TMX and GlossML, two formats that have been analyzed and discussed quite enough. In essence, the main work is done and the TC has the power to accept or reject. If the idea is accepted , the work can be refined and improved. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com From: Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com] Hi Rodolfo, I have some concerns related to your comment/proposal RR> If we define our own formats for TM, glossary and segmentation rules, we would be independent from LISA, ETSI, Unicode and others. Here are some of them: 1. The charter of the XLIFF TC delineates the TC’s scope. We would have to check that the charter covers the proposal. 2. The bandwidth and the expertise of the TC members may not allow the comprehensive coverage/scope that you propose. 3. “define our own formats” may lead to a situation in which requirements are not captured properly, and synergies and economies of scale are not possible. Best regards, Christian From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com] Hi Helena, In the few minutes I requested for after the meeting I proposed an idea: include in XLIFF 2.0 a set of optional modules for holding TM data (something like TMX), glossary data, segmentation rules (something along the lines of SRX). A translation job requires multiple files, source documents, XLIFF (or equivalent), TMX files and glossaries. What I´m proposing would reduce the number of files involved, by including some of the usual exchange files into an XLIFF 2.0 document. If we define our own formats for TM, glossary and segmentation rules, we would be independent from LISA, ETSI, Unicode and others. Those containers would be absolutely optional but could help in interoperability if developers have to deal with just on technical committee defining exchange rules. Best regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com From: Helena S Chapman [mailto:hchapman@us.ibm.com] Forgot to mention IBM concerns:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]