On 26 déc. 07, at 17:45, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
"Could" being the operative word here. See, I don't understand where
do you expect this info to actually come *from*. Somebody has to
type in those thousands of meta-descriptors into the carrier file,
after all.
Yuri, your original question was:
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can the Sun's glossary/TMX or
whatever be helpful without meta-information? No amount of toolchain
change is going to address this by itself.
The answer is simple.
In the case of SUN GLOSS, and for an OmegaT centered process, you can
leave the "meta-information" that SUN provides in its data as comments
in the glossary file that OmegaT uses. When I write "you can" I mean
"it is trivial" and can be done in a Calc sheet for example.
In the case of TMX/XLIFF, it can be done by properly using the
relevant tags in the respective files. And that can be done with a
script in the language of your choice. But for that, there is a need
to have the _will_ to have a direct filter for the SDF format first.
It might as easily be done with the extended SDF/FDS/whatever as
with XLIFF, but resources ought to be dedicated beforehand. And so,
in the case of hypothetical format switch resources ought to be
dedicated "twice". That's why I strongly doubt the format switch at
this juncture would facilitate the filling of the meta-info slots.
As Javier put it, SDF is _not_ a localization format. That is what you
seem to not understand in what I wrote.
We need a localization format (PO, XLIFF, key=value, anything) that
matches the localization data SUN provides us with (TMX). This has
nothing to with with developing or not developing the SDF format.
Jean-Christophe Helary
------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
