On 24 déc. 07, at 22:27, Javier SOLA wrote:
Two ideas for the discussion,
- SDF is not a localization format. Nobody localizes using SDF. It
is just an intermediary format that has the available information,
and which simplifies the steps of gathering the necessary
information and putting it back in the source.
I do use SDF because its contents matches the TMX provided by SUN. And
I am not the only one.
- Localization formats that we are using are PO and XLIFF.
I don't use (and don't advise to use) the current implementation of
the oo2po tool which produces the PO files a lot of people are using,
because the contents produced do not match the contents of the TMX
provided by SUN. And I am not the only one.
The current PO files create a huge overhead for translators, who need
to play with "\" characters so that their work is properly validated.
This comes from PO over-escaping strings that are alsread escaped in
SDF.
We are working on new SDF->XLIFF, XLIFF->SDF and XLIFFUPGRADE
filters that we hope to finish soon. The filters will be integrated
in the upcoming version 0.5 of the WordForge off-line localization
editor.
If what you do is compatible with the TMX contents that is great.
Now if the final idea is to use and XLIFF workflow, the "best" would
be to have SDF contain the original XML and _not_ escaped strings that
have no meaning when used in processes that include XLIFF or TMX.
XLIFF and TMX have all the necessary functions to protect the XML of
the translatable strings.
Jean-Christophe Helary
------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
