On 22.12.2007, at 17:39, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Interesting read indeed. (FYI I forwarded your blog to Pascal
Chevrel.)
May this be read and used by as many localisers as possible! (But of
course, the real point is to get rid of sdf files and that's a
completely different story)...
OK, this is the last piece that made me reply to this.
I often hear statements like this "We do not need SDF". But people
who write this do not know a lot about the translation, have heard
about one format etc.
We have many different teams. They use very different methods of
translations (some translate SDF in Calc because it is DOABLE, some
use PO based methods, some use TMX, some use XLIFF). Have you ever
thought why they are able to work as they wish in thir prefered
applications?
It is because SDF is very flexible and easy to use and convert to
whatever you need/want! But it is not SDF in particular that is so
good. It is the concept of "easy transformation to everything" that
is so successful. And SDF represents it right now.
Charles: what should be used instead of SDF? Do you have at least an
idea? Will you help to implement it?
In reality, these people who wrote that we do not need SDF, do not
want to get rid of SDF. They are not able to express what they really
need and use "get rid of SDF" phrase instead.
Yes, there are many rooms for improvements - e.g. context of the
translated word, better tagging etc. If you miss something, please
summarize it clearly in a positive and constructive way - e.g. in Wiki.
--
Pavel Janík
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
