- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:04:36 +0200
- To: "RICHARD,FRANCOIS (HP-France,ex1)" <francois.richard@hp.com>
- Cc: "'www-international@w3.org'" <www-international@w3.org>, "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, 10:15:23 AM, ex1) wrote: >> RI> Francois wrote: >> RI> I have been looking around for more info on the CSS >> RI> 'text-transform', its purpose and usage. I have the >> feeling that it >> RI> might make the processing of text more complex since it actually >> RI> transforms characters. >> >> It doesn't transform characters, and is thus designed to make RFHFe> It does transform the glyph. Yes. Characters and glyphs are not the same. >> text processing in general (including use of TM) *more* efficient. RFHFe> I do not think so. Visual aspect is important information as RFHFe> input for a translator. And could be classified under the RFHFe> infamous "contextual information" that is so important to RFHFe> translators. Please see my example in the previous mail. Visual aspect is important, but restyling the page does not require it to be retranslated. RFHFe> I agree on the principle that TM should be cleared of any RFHFe> style, layout and essentially concentrate on pure linguistic RFHFe> content. But it fails in practice. First simply because of lack RFHFe> of support of these rendering mechanisms in most of RFHFe> translation/localisation tools. Why would a translation tool require a rendering mechanism? RFHFe> And secondly, because the RFHFe> actual style does impact the translation. You do not translate RFHFe> "Products And Services catalog" the same way you translate RFHFe> "Products and services catalog" You would note that my example did use consistent capitalization to indicate that sort of thing. RFHFe> or "products and services RFHFe> catalog". It is in my mind the same for tags such as bold or RFHFe> emphasis. You do not want to eliminate them from the RFHFe> translation process, but keep them in a smart way so that they RFHFe> can be restored to the translators without messing the content RFHFe> analysis. You are talking about tags and I am talking about style, so I don't see any disagreement here. >> This will, with two lines of CSS, display identically to the >> first example. However, by using a consistent capitalisation >> throughout the text, the efficiency of Translation Memory is >> improved. RFHFe> Again, not true when different sytles impact the translation RFHFe> and require differences in the translated content. Which they will not, in this example. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:05:01 UTC