Back to Blog
Open sdlxliff in omegat7/26/2023 SDL introduced XLIFF as the native bilingual filetype for SDL Trados Studio 2009 and it was, and still is, fully compliant with the XLIFF 1.2 standard. In fact this is a good point to refute the first comment that SDL created their own proprietary version because nothing could be further from the truth. This could include of course sharing between two different translation tools. XLIFF stands for XML Localisation Interchange File Format and it was created to provide a reliable and consistent way to share translatable content between Content Management Systems and translation tools. I put a copy of the presentation I delivered at the event here for interest:īut first of all, a quick overview of the XLIFF standard (created under the OASIS nonprofit consortium) just so we know what we’re talking about. I’d also note this topic of interoperability is nothing new and in many ways to read an article 4-years on from a GALA event in 2014 (that had a bit of a focus on this topic) pushing XLIFF 2.0 as the solution to a translators problem of interoperability is very disappointing since it demonstrates how little things have moved on. So I’m going to share my own views here, and note these are my own views that may not reflect those of SDL in general. In fact sometimes, despite the best of intentions, I think the standard can actually have the opposite effect of what was originally intended. In many ways standards are an essential part of modern day life, but I don’t think they are always the answer to everything. I’m not writing as an expert on XLIFF (because I’m not), but I am passionate about translation and the technology we use, so I’m just delivering my view on the usefulness of XLIFF 2.0. It’s one of those things where commerce gets in the way of sanity.ĭoes XLIFF attempt to do anything for translators specifically? I have a character flaw forcing me to respond to things like this, and so I did, but as the commenting was tricky and the discussion unwieldy I thought I’d be able to address this better in my own article. Unfortunately, adoption of the XLIFF 2.0 standard has been slow, due to tools makers and other players deciding that interoperability is not in their interest. I say “new” because XLIFF 2.0 has been around for years now. Allow businesses to embed more information in the files, like TM matches glossaries, or annotations, further enhancing interoperability.Creating true interoperability among tools, so translators can work in the tool of their choice, and end-customers can have flexibility about who they work with too. Improve the standard so that different translation tools makers, like SDL, don’t “need” to create their own proprietary versions that are not compatible with other tools.XLIFF 2.0 is a “new” bilingual format for translation that attempts to do a handful important things for translators. The article makes a number of claims which I think might be a little misguided in my opinion… in fact this is what it says: It’s against this background I was prompted to write about this topic after reading this article questionning whether some companies were preventing translators from improving their lives. The very existence of a standard however does not mean it’s the panacea for every problem it may be loosely related to. I’m in awe of the knowledge and effort the technical standard committees display in delivering the comprehensive documentation they do, working hard to deliver a solution to meet the needs of as many groups as possible. In the last year or so many articles have been written about XLIFF 2.0 explaining what’s so great about it, so I’m not going to write another one of those.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |