Re: Restarting W3C Volunteer Translation Tracking

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 0:28, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org <mailto:dom@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jean-Christophe,
> 
> Le 28/09/2018 à 15:24, Jean-Christophe Helary a écrit :
>> A system like Github (or Gitlab ?) would certainly offer a number of benefits in terms of organisation (the idea of using issues to signal one's will to start a translation is really nice), but to ease the process of translating in teams, it would also be nice to offer/suggest processes that allow for the sharing of assets (glossaries, TMs, etc.)
>> 
>> For example, an hosted git server is all we need to have teams simultaneously work on a translation by using a tool such as OmegaT, which directly processes HTML, and is also made to work with ITS processed files output from Rainbow (Okapi Framework), if necessary. The Linux Foundation seems to have a number of projects that work under such settings.
> 
> Thanks - I have indeed been wondering about the opportunity to
> facilitate the use of or integration with existing translation tools and
> workflows, and I very much appreciate you listing some of these here,
> since I must confess I'm not very familiar with them.

That's a shame :) ITS is a W3C standard and I'm sure the ITS people (if they're not already here) could have a few ideas about this translation program. A number of people involved in Okapi were also involved with the TMX and XLIFF standards which are essential to the translation world right now.

> My current focus is specifically on restarting a translation program,
> and is thus limited in scope in terms of improvements of this kind; but
> once the new program is up and running, I will include in the next phase
> investigation both our own capability in integrating with these tools as
> well as the appetite from the community in such an integration.

Parallel to this discussion, I think there is the question of what to do with the already existing translation assets, especially those that have not been created in tools that allow for them reuse (for ex. export to reference bilingual files, etc.) That leaves the option of which tool/process to use to the individual translation but still offers them the appropriate reference translations to proceed with their work efficiently.

> Thanks again for your feedback!

You're welcome.


Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com <http://mac4translators.blogspot.com/> @brandelune