Re: [xliff] Uniqueness of language pair

[David Walters <waltersd@us.ibm.com>]

For IBM, bilingual at the <xliff> level is sufficient.  Each language would get a separate set of XLIFF files to translate, so there is no reason to include multilingual capability within an XLIFF file.  A multilingual file would actually complicate the process flow.

David

Corporate Globalization Tool Development
EMail:  waltersd@us.ibm.com          
Phone: (507) 253-7278,   T/L:553-7278,   Fax: (507) 253-1721

CHKPII:                    http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2011
TM file formats:     http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2083
TM markups:         http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2071


"Dr. David Filip" ---01/05/2012 08:04:21 PM---Hi Yves, sorry for confusion. Although I as most of you do support XLIFF staying bilingual.

From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 01/05/2012 08:04 PM
Subject: Re: [xliff] Uniqueness of language pair
Sent by: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Hi Yves, sorry for confusion. Although I as most of you do support XLIFF staying bilingual.
I was looking into a way how to implement the business need for multilingual project bulk exchange, so I proposed to enforce the bilinguality at the <file> level rather than <xliff> level, so that <xliff> can become a collection of <file> level elements of arbitrary source and target combinations.
I think this would be a sound implementation of multilingualism in xliff, although we would need to handle overload and processing carefully.

Wordbee who would push for this need are a cloud based TMS provider, and I gues they might be seconded by a large publisher such as Adobe or MS. I am not sure about IBM or Oracle, please do chime in guys!

I think (from my own experience) that LSP for most do not like to work with multilingual files. It can be done but is tricky, and the issue is that as matter of fact it usually is not well thought through by the client who owns the format and ends up in a lot of messy manual sorting and version controlling..
But this again might be a point for developing a blueprint ho wthis can be done properly..

Thanks and regards
dF


Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
mobile: +353-86-049-34-68
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie



On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 21:11, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

> I think that it makes perfect sense to set
> language pair uniqueness constraint at
> the file level.

David: Just to clarify, when you say "file" do you mean at the <file> element or at the "document" (<xliff> element)?

I assume: <xliff> level.

And I agree with Rodolfo/Fredrik too.

-yves


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org