W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2012

Updated process/category correlation chart

From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:55:58 +0200
Message-Id: <8298D006-BA69-4A74-BFA5-D6768433DC87@gmail.com>
To: Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi all,

The process and category chart is updated now with some additional process types:

It can be viewed here:


(Again, if you are not on the partners list and what editing rights to this chart, please send me an email and I will supply the editing link to you.)

Dave Lewis asked a few questions about this and asked me to respond to them on the list:

> 1) how do you distinguish between review and Translation QA?

Here the active distinction is between a formal process using a metric (Translation QA) that documents errors and an ad-hoc process of fixing errors (review). Review is far more common than formal QA. We've also got the term "review" floating around and we need to figure out what its relation is to all this.

> 2) could you clarify again what you mean by 'L10N' - it this number formats, segment length, images, audio etc, i.e. non text content localisation? This is an interesting point since HTML5 include things like SVG and MathML would be translate strings in these?

The chart distinguishes between translation (primarily a text-based process) and localization (which could include graphics, UI resizing, adaptation of audio, etc.). While the distinction is not always clear, there are tools specifically for localization (e.g., Alchemy Catalyst) and those primarily used for translation (e.g., TRADOS). While we can't find the exact boundary, I think it is useful to separate them. (I would posit that translation is a subordinate category to localization, but making a claim like that in a normative document would open a can of worms.)

Dave also asked me to suggest that we discuss consolidating categories on the list, so if you think it makes sense to remove some or combine some, please suggest it on the list.


Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 08:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:16 UTC