| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Converting SDLXLIFF file to TTX file Thread poster: Mika Regan
|
|---|
Laurent KRAULAND (X) 
France
Local time: 11:42
French to German
+ ...
| My definition of "standard XLIFF" | Nov 16, 2010 |
SDL Support wrote:
Many manufacturers of CAT tools take advantage of this with their own extensions. In addition to this there are different ways of using the definitions themselves, but still without abandoning the standard. So, I think it might be more appropriate for you to say that SDLXLIFF is not simple XLIFF, but it certainly is not correct to say that it is not standard XLIFF.
Hello Paul,
thanks for taking the time to reply.
From my point of view, "standard XLIFF" means that the software publisher will use the format "as is" - definitions, warts and all.
| | | | | And herein lies the problem! | Nov 16, 2010 |
Laurent KRAULAND wrote:
From my point of view, "standard XLIFF" means that the software publisher will use the format "as is" - definitions, warts and all.
Hi Laurent,
This is what SDLXLIFF is. There is nothing in there that is not covered under the "definitions, warts and all." I think if the standard was more prescriptive then all software publishers would have to provide for a "standard XLIFF", but it is not.
Probably, there is no such thing as a "standard XLIFF", only whether it complies with the specification or not..!
Regards
Paul
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:42
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| XLIFF and XML | Nov 16, 2010 |
IMHO XLIFF is not a big difference to XML - a very widely used "standard" format, where you need a separate DTD for each single file, if you are not getting them from the same customer all the time.
| | | | Péter Tófalvi
Hungary
Local time: 11:42
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
...The plain "Save target as" command delivers you TTX.
...If you need a EN-GB TM in a EN-US project, just export, create the proper language pair and import - this will work.
The Save As... command only works if you have Trados 2006 installed.
So, if one upgrades to Studio 2009 has to also keep Trados 2006. Is this normal? No, it isn't by any logic.
As for TMs, I don't want to "just export, create" etc. anything. This is not my job!
I am a translator not an importer or exporter or anything like that. What is the advantage of using CAT tools if one spends quarter of his/her time by importing, exporting, maintenance, converting and so on????
Why Trados TMs are encrypted, so I cannot use them with other CAT tools?
(By the way: Wordfast TMs and glossaries are NOT encrypted).
This is my work after all, Trados has no right to make them unavailable for me.
Logical would be to have one SINGLE STANDARDIZED (!) TM (covering multiple language pairs) for all CAT tools (the same for glossaries), so I can use my only TM for all my Trados, Wordfast, Dejá Vu, Olifant etc. projects.
"You may say I am dreamer, but I am not the only one."
Just think about the browser industry just 10 years ago, when Microsoft tried to monopolize this market segment. Young people cannot even appreciate the freedom that we enjoy today: you can choose any browser you want and OF COURSE you can export and import your favorites/bookmarks among them. Or think about roaming fees in the EU...
I strongly hope that something will happen here, too, very soon.
| | |
|
|
|
| Swordfish and SDLXLIFF | Nov 16, 2010 |
Laurent KRAULAND wrote:
but there is the answer, plain and simple: .SDLXLIFF is not (repeat: ***NOT***) standard .XLIFF, else there would be no need for an .SDLXLIFF filter in Swordfish... for example!
SDLXLIFF files are usually valid XLIFF documents and they normally comply with the standard. Sometimes they include characters not supported in XML and they are invalid from XML point of view and thereafter they are invalid XLIFF.
Swordfish can open SDLXLIFF and let you translate them without converting to XLIFF first. However, SDLXLIFF files contain proprietary stuff that may get easily damaged when not handled in Studio.
Swordfish lets you convert SDLXLIFF files to XLIFF without aggregates; it simply removes the custom pieces and stores them in a separate location. After translating, you can convert the XLIFF back to SDLXLIFF and the custom code is restored. This ability has been incorporated in Swordfish as a safety measure to preserve custom data, not because SDLXLIFF files are "non-standard".
Regards,
Rodolfo
| | | | Laurent KRAULAND (X)
France
Local time: 11:42
French to German
+ ...
| Thanks, Paul and Rodolfo... | Nov 16, 2010 |
point taken.
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:42
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| Trados 2006 is not part of Studio | Nov 16, 2010 |
Péter Tófalvi wrote: Jerzy Czopik wrote:
...The plain "Save target as" command delivers you TTX.
...If you need a EN-GB TM in a EN-US project, just export, create the proper language pair and import - this will work. The Save As... command only works if you have Trados 2006 installed. So, if one upgrades to Studio 2009 has to also keep Trados 2006. Is this normal? No, it isn't by any logic.
Your information is completly wrong. Even if then it would be Trados 2007, which is indeed part of SDL Trados Studio. You claim about missing compatibility and then will neglect the existence of a tool providing you the compatibility? Ok, so then buy a hybrid car but then do not refuel it, since it has batteries to drive...
As for TMs, I don't want to "just export, create" etc. anything. This is not my job!
I am a translator not an importer or exporter or anything like that. What is the advantage of using CAT tools if one spends quarter of his/her time by importing, exporting, maintenance, converting and so on????
Same as any other tool, like InDesign or Framemaker - do you translate in those formats directly?
Why Trados TMs are encrypted, so I cannot use them with other CAT tools?
(By the way: Wordfast TMs and glossaries are NOT encrypted).
Why is Framemaker format encrypted?
Come on, this is business, why should they be open and what for?
This is my work after all, Trados has no right to make them unavailable for me.
You can use them, open, merge, export, copy, cut and do what you want with them.
Where is your problem?
Logical would be to have one SINGLE STANDARDIZED (!) TM (covering multiple language pairs) for all CAT tools (the same for glossaries), so I can use my only TM for all my Trados, Wordfast, Dejá Vu, Olifant etc. projects.
Following your logic we would need the only right operating system running on the only right hardware delivered by the only right producer. I hate monopols, so the current situation is perfect for me.
"You may say I am dreamer, but I am not the only one."
Just think about the browser industry just 10 years ago, when Microsoft tried to monopolize this market segment. Young people cannot even appreciate the freedom that we enjoy today: you can choose any browser you want and OF COURSE you can export and import your favorites/bookmarks among them. Or think about roaming fees in the EU...
Oh, you really do export them? But I thought you are "not an importer or exporter or anything like that"?
[Edited at 2010-11-16 17:04 GMT]
| | | | Péter Tófalvi
Hungary
Local time: 11:42
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| lack of bona fides | Nov 16, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
Oh, you really do export them? But I thought you are "not an importer or exporter or anything like that"?
You are distorting my message.
What I am saying is:
Export/import must be automatic WITHIN THE SAME software. Trados MUST handle all its formats, and MUSTN'T force the user to do endless maintenance tasks.
Export/import is needed among DIFFERENT software brands, for example Trados and the cheaper and much better Wordfast, but even this operation must be eiminated in the future by the use of common, standardised file types. Software developer companies will not agree to this, so we must pressure our legal bodies to make them agree.
Of course, some people can prefer that things remain as they now are, but for those who prefer the freedom of choice there will be changes.
[Módosítva: 2010-11-16 14:20 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Laurent KRAULAND (X)
France
Local time: 11:42
French to German
+ ...
| Importing, exporting and other matters | Nov 16, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote: Péter Tófalvi wrote:
As for TMs, I don't want to "just export, create" etc. anything. This is not my job!
I am a translator not an importer or exporter or anything like that. What is the advantage of using CAT tools if one spends quarter of his/her time by importing, exporting, maintenance, converting and so on???? Same as any other tool, like InDesign or Framemaker - do you translate in those formats directly?
I would even go one step further and say that the raw outputs of the formats mentioned by Jerzy (or any other "office" formats for that matter) are the worst formats for translation we could ever think of!
Spending painfully long hours of translating directly in PageMaker is not exactly my vision of efficient translation.
This being said, I also can see Péter's viewpoint and all these manipulations all too often give the wrong impression that translators are merely more or less technicians operating some bizarre programmes with uncertain outputs.
| | | | | I don't understand that *problem* | Nov 16, 2010 |
Péter Tófalvi wrote:
...and dear Czopyk, please don't tell me fairy tales.
Many people (agencies) still use the previous Trados version, so they will send you/me TTX and the fact that I am able to open it it is not enough, because they want to get back the same TTX format. Unfortunately, I cannot send them back anything else that a strange .sdlxliff (this looks like an alien form of artificial unintelligence).
If you have Studio 2009, you also got a free license and copy of Trados Suite 2007. We as translators are not in a position to decide which tools our clients use. We do have the choice, though, to reject certain file formats, if we don't like them.
If your client sends you a TTX, it's quite natural that they also expect you to deliver a TTX. And as said above, you own the tool to achieve this: TagEditor. I don't see how it could be the client's obligation to provide us with TM exports that suit our chosen translation software. If you decide to translate their files in a tool that is not the "genuine" one for a given file type, then I'd say it's you who needs to ensure compatibility, not your client and not the software vendors either.
You wouldn't open an Excel file in PowerPoint, would you?
Regards,
Stefan
| | | | Péter Tófalvi
Hungary
Local time: 11:42
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| please try to understand my *problem* | Nov 16, 2010 |
Stefan Keller wrote:
If you decide to translate their files in a tool that is not the "genuine" one for a given file type, then I'd say it's you who needs to ensure compatibility, not your client and not the software vendors either.
What I am speaking here about are simple requirements:
1. Wee do need standardisation of the CAT tools industry:
a.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the multilingual TM generated by another CAT tool. The candidate for this omni-compatible TM format would be TMX, but I would simplify the things even further, and would prefer a simple TXT-based TM (like the one used by Wordfast) that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
b.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the multilingual glossaries generated by another CAT tool. I would prefer a simple TXT-based glossary (like the one used by Wordfast) that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
c.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the bilingual files generated by another CAT tool (e.g. what was TTX for Trados). I would prefer a simple TXT-based file that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
2. User manuals must be as short as possible. I currently use around 100 program packages, each with a user manual of more than 100 pages, but the average is around 200 pages. This means more than 10 thousand pages. Moreover, I have to read relevant documents for many of my translation jobs. (See also: visual damage. I think I could sue all these companies for this visual damage and I would get a huge indemnification.:-)
Please let me know if you do not understand something from the above.
[Módosítva: 2010-11-16 14:50 GMT]
[Módosítva: 2010-11-16 14:52 GMT]
| | | | | I understand ... | Nov 16, 2010 |
What I am speaking here about are simple requirements:
1. Wee do need standardisation of the CAT tools industry:
a.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the multilingual TM generated by another CAT tool.
That's what you're wishing for, yes. But then, welcome to the real world!
As long as there are different vendors of translation software, you can't really expect them all to use the same format.
and would prefer a simple TXT-based TM (like the one used by Wordfast) that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
c.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the bilingual files generated by another CAT tool (e.g. what was TTX for Trados). I would prefer a simple TXT-based file that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
*You* would prefer this, others might prefer something else. Isn't it rather an advantage that there are different approaches to choose from? What dictator would be entitled to tell millions of translators what *standard* they are forced to use? You? Me? I don't guess so...
2. User manuals must be as short as possible.
While I agree that a short Quick Start Guide should be part of any manual, I prefer user manuals that comprehensively cover the application's features in case I want to make myself familiar with them. On the other hand, a really good application should be as self-explanatory as possible, to an extent that a manual might even be unnecessary. Then again, this is not the point of this thread.
| | |
|
|
|
Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:42
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| Please show me at least one industry product which fulfills your needs | Nov 16, 2010 |
Péter Tófalvi wrote: Stefan Keller wrote:
If you decide to translate their files in a tool that is not the "genuine" one for a given file type, then I'd say it's you who needs to ensure compatibility, not your client and not the software vendors either. What I am speaking here about are simple requirements: 1. Wee do need standardisation of the CAT tools industry: a.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the multilingual TM generated by another CAT tool. The candidate for this omni-compatible TM format would be TMX, but I would simplify the things even further, and would prefer a simple TXT-based TM (like the one used by Wordfast) that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
First, does Wordfast Plus still use this format?
And if yes, please tell me why should I resign for the benefits of TMX?
b.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the multilingual glossaries generated by another CAT tool. I would prefer a simple TXT-based glossary (like the one used by Wordfast) that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
c.) every CAT tool must be able to read and write the bilingual files generated by another CAT tool (e.g. what was TTX for Trados). I would prefer a simple TXT-based file that can be edited in any text editor, even Notepad.
You say must. OK. Now the question: if you take a standard industry product, like a water tap, can you be sure, that when you buy one in Germany it will fit in your home in Hungary?
When you take your hair dryer from Germany to the US, will it work? Although it is a standard industry product it will not.
So please let us go back to our business, this is nothing to be discussed in a forum about Trados problems, because it is neither a Trados problem, nor is it a problem per se.
| | | | Péter Tófalvi
Hungary
Local time: 11:42
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
this is nothing to be discussed in a forum about Trados problems, because it is neither a Trados problem, nor is it a problem per se.
OK, let us return to the subject of this topic that in normal conditions wouldn't even exist, because in a normal world it would have no importance what software we use. In a translation team there would be translators using Trados, Wordfast, Deaja Vu, MemoQ, etc. etc. and they would easily exchange project files with each other. The customer's Project Manager wouldn't even know what CAT tool each translator uses, so we all could concentrate on translation and would be relieved of technical issues.
What I would like to still mention is that if there is no pressure from our part, things will remain as they now are, and after 20 years other translators will discuss the same, ever returning compatibility and conversion problems on these websites.
[Módosítva: 2010-11-16 19:52 GMT]
| | | | | Compatibility issue regarding unclean/bilingual file format | Dec 29, 2011 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
And TBH I do not understand what does that matter, if the format is called black, white, grey or red?
A name does not matter, what matters is to have a cross-platform format (not a proprietary one).
I have recently migrated from SDL 2007 to 2011 and now stuck with colleagues who use SDL 2007.
I have a compatibility issue now between SDL 2007 & 2011 regarding bilingual files.
My concern: what file format (bilingual/unclean file) should I send to my colleagues from my version (SDL Studio 2011) after I finish translation so they can update their TM version (SDL 2007) accordingly?
I am still searching for a solution and wish you can help.
[Edited at 2011-12-29 13:16 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Converting SDLXLIFF file to TTX file | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to SDL Trados
