On 24 déc. 07, at 23:13, Yury Tarasievich wrote:

Propose and implement what you wish, you still omit people in translating communities needing to re-learn etc.

Yes, re-learn to be more efficient. Anything wrong with that ?

See what is wrong with the current process and try to improve it.

As I wrote before, using the TMX in OmegaT with the SDF files directly allowed me to have about 50% of the GUI strings almost automatically translated, 25% had very close matches and the remaining 25% were new strings.

So I am saying that by spending 15mn to read what I wrote, another 15mn to read the software tutorial, one can save 75% on the time spent to translate.

Take me for example — I get quite a fair re-use ratio with Kbabel, I don't feel comfortable with the "feel" of any free XLIFF-capable tools, and I have yet to see some good demonstration of translation- workflow-related advantages of the "new way to go". What I saw in my experience with OmegaT wasn't "better", it was "better some, worse some".

It was not better because until now there was not way to easily use the contents of the SDF file. It was not easier to me neither even though I use OmegaT professionally. It was not easier because the files that are served to us are not properly converted and don't match the TMX contents.

Can't recall — did I say I'm opting out of this discussion already?

But you never attempted to discuss in the first place. I am not being "uselessly critical", I have proposed solutions that work and that allow translators and coordinators to be more efficient.

And I know that because I have tried them, and I have completed and delivered translations with them.

Have you even tried the methods before ranting ? Of course not, otherwise you would have seen that what I wrote _did_ make sense.


Jean-Christophe Helary

------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to