On Wednesday 20 February 2008 04:53:46 am Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho wrote: > What about Pootle and XLIFF Standard ? Fully supporting XLIFF (which b.t.w. became an Oasis standard a few weeks back) is at present a bit tricky. With PO, we have a wide range of available translation tools (e.g. KBabel, Gtranslator, PoEdit) as well as manipulation tools (msgmerge, pocount, translate toolkit). standard text-based tools like diff etc also works very well with PO files. With XLIFF, we don't have many option with regards to open source translation tools, and the existing tools handle XLIFF in slightly different ways. PO has in many ways been 'the XLIFF of the open source world', as we are using PO as a resource container not only for extracted software messages, but for docs, xml files etc.. But development of XLIFF tools is starting to pick up.. With XLIFF, we could support a much richer workflow, allowing e.g. 'newbie' translators to only add translations as 'suggestions' and allowing maintainers or more experienced translators to review them. We could also easily track who did what, e.g. that translation unit 3434 was added in SVN revision 3424, translated by Translator A on Tuesday 23 Feb 07, later reviewed by Translator B and approved... For those interested in XLIFF, we are currently in the process of defining goals and features for the next major version (2.0). I am hoping to ensure that we have support for the features we need from a social-translation and open source development in 2.0, so ideas and thoughts are welcome :) About pootle, I'm a big fan of what the translate.sf.net people are doing, and we are investigating how we can integrate e.g. pootle within our L10N infrastructure. More developers are always welcome :) cheers, asgeir (member of the XLIFF Technical Committee and also working with the Fedora L10N infrastructure) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
