Pages in topic:   [1 2 3] >
Safe to translate TTX file in Studio 2009?
Thread poster: Andreas THEODOROU

Andreas THEODOROU  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 00:27
Greek to English
+ ...
Nov 11, 2011

Hi all

My agency's guidelines states that all translators should "translate files using TagEditor". Elsewhere it is stated, "if you already use SDL Trados 2009, please make sure that a parallel installation of SDL Trados 2007 version is on your PC. Please use SDL Trados 2007".

I have received - and will have to return - a TTX file.

Out of curiosity I did some testing and it turns out that it is entirely possible to translate in SDL 2009 and then do "Save Target as" to obtain the original (bilingual) TTX file.

Is there any reason why I should not carry on using SDL 2009 rather than TagEditor?

Why does the agency stipulate that SDL 2007 MUST be used - out of ignorance or out of fear of conversion problems or the like?

Thanks for any help

Andy

PS apologies If this has been answered before - I am actually working on this now in SDL 2009 so want to waste as little time as possible if i have to revert to Tag Editor


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 00:27
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
----- Nov 11, 2011

In Studio 2009 in the corresponding file type (within the project, if you already generated one or in the project template, if you will use any, otherwise via Tools - Options) make sure, that "Smart tag pairing" is DISABLED.
Semi-pretranslate the TTX in the Workbench with an empty TM (or even better customers TM) using the option "Segment unknown sentences" and use this TTX for Studio translation.
The agency will be able to notice you used Studio, as the TTX header will disclose the creation tool.
Otherwise if really necessary you could take the header from the original TTX, which has been created with T2007 - that way no one should notice anything...


 

Marinus Vesseur  Identity Verified
Canada
Local time: 15:27
English to Dutch
+ ...
Possible incompatibility between Trados 2007 and SDL Trados Studio 2009 Nov 11, 2011

There have been cases where an agency with Trados 2007 could not handle ttx files that were edited with Studio. There is a buit-in incompatibility between Studio and Trados that affects the ttx files. I've thus far only had it with just one agency. The we-couldn't-care-less reply by SDL is that the agency should upgrade to Studio - they are apparently not working on a solution. Figures.

 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 00:27
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
Details please Nov 11, 2011

Marinus Vesseur wrote:

There have been cases where an agency with Trados 2007 could not handle ttx files that were edited with Studio. There is a buit-in incompatibility between Studio and Trados that affects the ttx files. I've thus far only had it with just one agency. The we-couldn't-care-less reply by SDL is that the agency should upgrade to Studio - they are apparently not working on a solution. Figures.


I deal with customer TTX files since the very beginninbg of Studio 209, this means early 2009, certainly longer as most other users. And I have never had any slightest problem with those files. Neither myself nor got it reported by the customer. Therefore I would gladly learn to know the incompatibility problem.


 

Andreas THEODOROU  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 00:27
Greek to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
.. Nov 11, 2011

Marinus' answer is the one I was afraid of.




[Edited at 2011-11-11 21:02 GMT]


 

SDL Community  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:27
English
Unfortunately the myth lives on... Nov 11, 2011

Hi Andreas,

When I say myth I'm referring to the "SDL couldn't care less" myths that are propogated by some users. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already tried to respond to Marinus in an earlier, but similar thread but he ignored me and carries on posting like this...

http://www.proz.com/forum/sdl_trados_support/203065-client_can_not_open_my_files_any_more.html#1834582

There are plenty of users in this forum and elsewhere who work quite happily with Agencies, and also when everyone is using a multitude of tools in the process. This kind of CAT hopping requires some knowledge of how to deal with issues that arise, and this includes working between different versions of SDLs software as well as between different versions of other vendors tools like memoQ, DVX, Wordfast or whatever.

You may think that just because 2007 and 2009 come from SDL that this means they must be always be 100% compatible from version to version. But if you think about it you'd realise that Studio is a solution we are working on to replace many different tools (Trados, SDLX, Idiom Workbench) and these were not always owned by the same company. Maintaining old formats forever just doesn't make sense.

If you have examples of where you encounter problems we are only too happy to help you with them through many different support avenues... this forum being one of them. Sometimes the answer might be to upgrade because it's very difficult to keep supporting legacy versions of any tool, but not always.

I don't know who Marinus gets his information from (it isn't me and we have had off forum correspondence in the past so he could ask), but even if it's true that the answer was upgrade I don't think he says anything you should accept without questionning why?

Please, feel free to send me any examples of where you have these problems and we'll be very happy to help.

Regards

Paul
pfilkin@sdl.com

[Edited at 2011-11-11 21:37 GMT]


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 00:27
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
The helping hand was always here Nov 11, 2011

SDL Support wrote:
...
Please, feel free to send me any examples of where you have these problems and we'll be very happy to help.


Since many years now. On and on again. Look at this forum and search for Pauls name.
He has answered in so many topics and helped out so many people (me including).
And he IS a SDL guy. So is this really true SDL cares less?
In my eyes the truth is the users care less. They do not care to observe correct procedures (and these are necessary in ANY tool). They do not try to take conclusions. What they do is mosty shouth "the software is guilty". And if you show them how to, they say that the software is still guilty, because it was not obvious.

This reminds me of a discussion on a German car dedicated forum, where I use to write quite often.
Someone has bought a new car, a BMW 520d (F10). After 3 months he posted, that the car started to be boring. The discussion there has now quite a number of answers and people came to the conclusion, that the car is nearly perfect, so that it indeed may be boring to use. You just get in and drive. No emotion, nothing. Just drive... Taken this you see it is not worth to try to make things perfect - there always will be someone with a different need.

Back to the topic: I translate roughly a million words per year. Since the first release of Studio approximately 80% of this volume was processed with Studio. And 90% of my customers do NOT use Studio. Nevertheless there were never problems. So if you know about a persisting problem tell it. There might be solution out there for this problem.


 

Andreas THEODOROU  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 00:27
Greek to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
... Nov 11, 2011

Hello Paul
Thanks for the answer.
I'm translating even as we speak, in Studio 2009 (which I prefer over Tag Editor). Fingers crossed that when I've finished I'll be able to return a TTX file that the agency will be happy with.
If I experience problems, you'll hear from me within the next few days!
Andreas

PS I have to say that I ABSOLUTELY DO expect that any program (from any software maker) should be backward-compatible with at least the previous incarnation, unless non-compatibility is expressly stated. And the more I've paid to buy or upgrade to the current version, the more strongly I feel!


 

Alexandre Maricato
Brazil
Local time: 19:27
English to Portuguese
A question for Paul Nov 11, 2011

One thing that bothers me most about Studio (although I use it and in most of times it is quite effective) is why it cannot handle the whole processing of ttx files (which means creating, working on and saving) without the aid of Trados 2007.

As SDL managed to create filters for many non-proprietary formats (which I believe involved some kind of reverse engineering, unless all software companies had an agreement to open their product coding for SDL to work on), I simply don't understand how they cannot manage to include their own proprietary format on Studio for the above mentioned purpose.

So, please if you could explain why (disregarding the strategic purpose of selling a more expensive bundle with 2007 included), it would very interesting to know.


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 00:27
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
Studio 2011 comes with the utility to do so Nov 11, 2011

And for Studio 2009 you can go to www.sdl.com and chose Language Technologies, then get to Open Exchange and download the TTX It! utility.

As for the backward compatibility: opening InDesign CS5 in CS3 is not possible. Opening Framemaker 8 in Framemaker 7 is not possible. Opening Word 2007 in Word 2003 is not possible unless you install an additional tool.
Sometimes a format must be changed to open the chances for new functionality (doc to docx for example), so always expecting backward compatibility is not safe.


 

SDL Community  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:27
English
Why stop at TTX? Nov 11, 2011

Hi Alexandre,

We have ITD in SDLX, we have bilingual doc/docx/rtf or TTX from Trados, we have xlf from Idiom Desktop Workbench. Should we do them all? I suppose you could argue we should... although I dread to think what sort of issue this would result in, but the real reason is because we chose XLIFF, in fact SDLXLIFF. None of these other formats can support all the features we hold in SDLXLIFF so as soon as you saved your work in a legacy format for someone with an older product to work on you would lose at least all of these unsupported things.

• Context matching
• Context information (right hand column in Studio Editor)
• Segment status and properties
• Comments below segment level
• Safe tag pairing and Semi-WYSIWYG formatting
• Extended tag properties
• Localizable content inside tags
• Merged files
• Preview & Verification
• QuickInserts
• Merging and splitting of segments
• Handling of content between segments
• Save as target/source
• Locked content
• Paragraph unit and segment boundaries
• New or enhanced filters for all file types
• Tracked changes

So might be ok for the occassional thing... but it's not sustainable.

Regards

Paul


 

SDL Community  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:27
English
And just on this point Nov 11, 2011

Alexandre Maricato wrote:

As SDL managed to create filters for many non-proprietary formats (which I believe involved some kind of reverse engineering, unless all software companies had an agreement to open their product coding for SDL to work on), I simply don't understand how they cannot manage to include their own proprietary format on Studio for the above mentioned purpose.



We do include our own formats. Studio 2011 doesn't need 2007 at all to handle the file formats. But you started off by saying we should also create these other formats. We don't create InDesign, Framemaker, Excel etc. so why should we create TTX, Bilingual Doc and XLF to suit our legacy products.

The fact is that even if we did, none of the content would have been created with old TMs or old filetypes so if you tried to get the same leverage from them after cleaning up in legacy TMs you would not. So you have to start wondering what would be the point based on this fact alone.

The only way they are useful is when they have been created with old TMs, using old filetypes and then translated in Studio. To do this you need the legacy tools anyway.

Regards

Paul


 

Alexandre Maricato
Brazil
Local time: 19:27
English to Portuguese
Thanks Jerzy, but my point was the opposite Nov 11, 2011

As for the backward compatibility: opening InDesign CS5 in CS3 is not possible. Opening Framemaker 8 in Framemaker 7 is not possible. Opening Word 2007 in Word 2003 is not possible unless you install an additional tool.
Sometimes a format must be changed to open the chances for new functionality (doc to docx for example), so always expecting backward compatibility is not safe.


Thanks Jerzy for the tip about TTX It!

Regarding the backward compatibility, I was saying the exact opposite:

Creating, opening and saving doc in Word 2007 is possible.

The same goes for most software products. Of course, software developers include functionalities on new versions, and one could not expect to open a new format using an old software that was not planned to deal with such format.

My point was that creating TTX on Studio is not possible. And although Paul offered a technical explanation (which was what I was asking for), MS Office (for example) offers the option to save (or create) a legacy format without the new format improvements.

Regards,
Alex


 

Alexandre Maricato
Brazil
Local time: 19:27
English to Portuguese
Thanks Paul Nov 11, 2011

Alexandre Maricato wrote:

As SDL managed to create filters for many non-proprietary formats


We do include our own formats. Studio 2011 doesn't need 2007 at all to handle the file formats. But you started off by saying we should also create these other formats. We don't create InDesign, Framemaker, Excel etc. so why should we create TTX, Bilingual Doc and XLF to suit our legacy products. [/quote]

Thanks for the technical answer, that was what I was asking for.

But I never said that SDL creates non-proprietary formats. I said it creates FILTERS for such formats, which implies enough expertise to decode such formats and perform reverse engineering to include them on your product.

My point is: how can such expertise not be enough to develop some engine which allows Studio to create TTX (and the other SLD formats you mentioned).

I understand that SDLXLIFF offers several new functionalities, but does the other person with an older product loses them anyway when I send them the TTX (created on 2007 and worked on Studio)?

So, as the new functionalities would be lost anyway, why not allow Studio create the legacy formats AS AN OPTION (which would speed up the process on my end and would not make any difference to the person who is receiving the TTX - or any other legacy format from me)?

Regards,
Alex


 

Jaroslaw Michalak  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 00:27
Member (2004)
English to Polish
No, really... Nov 12, 2011

SDL Support wrote:
None of these other formats can support all the features we hold in SDLXLIFF so as soon as you saved your work in a legacy format for someone with an older product to work on you would lose at least all of these unsupported things.


I am sorry, but this argument is nonsense... It's as if MS said: "Txt files cannot have all the features .doc files have, so there is no point of having the converter." But as it happens, some people might have a need to save that information in that format, even though they know perfectly well that not all features will be there. It's the same situation. By the way, you can create a doc file in Word 2007, save it with a proper converter and open it in Word 97. That's backward compatibility for you.


The fact is that even if we did, none of the content would have been created with old TMs or old filetypes so if you tried to get the same leverage from them after cleaning up in legacy TMs you would not. So you have to start wondering what would be the point based on this fact alone.

The only way they are useful is when they have been created with old TMs, using old filetypes and then translated in Studio. To do this you need the legacy tools anyway.


You miss the point here... The translator will not (usually) use the "old TMs". His client will. And his client does have the "legacy" tools. But why the translator has to have them as well? Just because the backward compatibility is broken...

After all, the request: "Here is the .doc file, we want it back as ttx." is not that unusual, is it? I bet thousands of translators read or hear it every day. The reply: "You see, I cannot do that right now, even though I have this shiny, pricey latest software... For that I have to install that old... I mean that legacy stuff nobody likes anymore." does sound a bit disheartening, doesn't it?


 
Pages in topic:   [1 2 3] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Safe to translate TTX file in Studio 2009?

Advanced search







SDL Trados Studio 2019 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 250,000 translators.

SDL Trados Studio 2019 has evolved to bring translators a brand new experience. Designed with user experience at its core, Studio 2019 transforms how new users get up and running, helps experienced users make the most of the powerful features, ensures new

More info »
memoQ translator pro
Kilgray's memoQ is the world's fastest developing integrated localization & translation environment rendering you more productive and efficient.

With our advanced file filters, unlimited language and advanced file support, memoQ translator pro has been designed for translators and reviewers who work on their own, with other translators or in team-based translation projects.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search