Vito,
See my reply to Clytie.
The problem with using XLIFF is not a tool problem, but merely a
conversion problem. The intermediate conversion to PO with the
translate-toolkit tools removes all the benefit from working with an
XML based format.
Also OmegaT is not the best way to work with XLIFF currently. OLT is
cumbersome and not easy to use but as far as XLIFF 1.0 is concerned
it does the job properly. For OmegaT to be efficient in this process,
it would be necessary that OOo adopts a TMX based localization
process: all the legacy versions are stored as TMX and all the
translations do _not_ take place on diffs but on the whole source.
That way it would be trivial to generate updated translations without
ever leaving an XML workflow.
The intermediate SDF conversion makes this very difficult to happen
as well as the second conversion to PO.
Jean-Christophe
On 9 août 07, at 19:37, Vito Smolej wrote:
Can I suggest OmegaT in this context?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/omegat
Regards
Vito
Von: "Christian Lohmaier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
German-lang team already uses xliff for the translation work
(but one of the main reasons was as well, that there is a java-based
editor
that can be used on whatever platform (share TM, reviews,...)
https://open-language-tools.dev.java.net/editor/about-xliff-
editor.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
