Document Localization Process?

[Bill Swallow]

MIF works fine and dandy as well and is a non-binary text format.
Going structured and to XML has its advantages, but if the only
concern is localization and using TM tools, it's a lot easier just to
use MIF than to apply structure and use XML for the sake of TM
effectiveness.

On 11/25/05, David Farbey <dfarbey at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> One approach to localization problems is to move to an XML-based solution.
> This involves a considerable effort, but in the case of a large volume of
> documentation, such as the 35,000 pages a year and large number of localized
> versions at Mercury mentioned earlier, the eventual savings could be justify
> the costs involved.
>
> As XML files are plain text files rather than compiled files (like .fm or
> .doc), changes to them can be tracked more easily by content management
> systems. XML offers many other advantages for documentation particularly
> when combined with a content management system, but I would imagine that
> this is not the best forum to discuss them.
>
> However, FrameMaker users may like to consider moving to Structured
> FrameMaker as a first step towards an-XML-centric solution.
>
> David Farbey

--
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
42.8162,-73.7736
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
============================
I support Char James-Tanny for STC Secretary.