RE: [Freecats-Dev] Interface/vote (Wordfast ?)

[Henri Chorand]

Dave wrote:
> Well, you asked for a vote and I haven't seen any being cast yet
> so here's what I say.

Yes, I wish more people would express their opinions.

> I'm wearing my pure professional translator's hat here and
> I'm thinking in personal rather than project terms. Remember,
> translators want to see some benefit for themselves and
> consistency is probably not the main issue for them.
>
> 1) However hard a pill it is to swallow, 75% of all translation work
> is going to be done on wintel for a long time to come, and more
> specifically, on MS word.

If you add up what comes up / can come up in HTML/XML/RTF/resource files, it
becomes a little more.
Yes, MSW is a pain in somewhere.
Still, I come again and again with the same idea: Free CATS' problem is like
a snowball: once it can be started in the right direction (and I hope it
will), it will be a success, because too many people need it (the free
software teams not the least here: for instance, now KBabel is a nice tool
for .PO files, but I'm sure they would not mind if they could translate HTML
+ XML + Latex files with a reliable and portable TM technology).

For me, being able to work on HTML/XML/RTF/resource files with a TM server
SHOULD be enough to attract much more interest and resources than at
present, and THEN (from that stage) we may be able to see a lot of progress.
Call that intermediate stage a prototype or whatever else you like.
If we keep a modular architecture, we can't go totally wrong with it.

> An MS Office interface should be among the first priorities. If
> Y.C's interface (which works on all MS office documents not
> just Word) gets that problem out of the way then let's go for
> it if he's willing.

Well, Yves, now is a nice time to tell us something about it.
I believe I won't be the only one here to buy WF if it has a true multi-user
[free] TM server behind.

> Proprietary and open source can go hand in hand and I don't
> mind paying a justifiable price.

100% OK with you here.

> 2) Re:1. If we're going to wean customers off MS Office (* see
> below), and I really don't see any realistic alternative to
> OOo/Star Office at present,

True, there is none except if your name is IBM, and still... ;-)

> then we'd better not let Trados get to critical mass otherwise
> the job will be ten times as hard since I can't see them making
> an OOo version.

They won't, not with MS owning some of their capital assets.

> Trados is defacto at the moment but not irreversibly so. Once
> we have our MS interface we need that OOo interface quickly
> too so we can go one up on Trados. Might this create a conflict
> of interests for Yves and Wordfast? or might Yves look the
> possibility of porting WF to OOo too?

I'm waiting for Yves' answer. I myself do not see a major source of
conflict, maybe an adjustment. Yves, whatever you decide, Free CATS is not
the only one with a TM server idea, anyway.

> Once these two interfaces are out of the way, then yes, a stand-
>alone interface would be great (read "indispensable"), especially
> for html/xml and perhaps other stuff too.

Well, yes, so ideally, we need both - I believe all of us translators know
it. Then, if Wordfast does not cross the river, let's begin with a
standalone translation client editor.

> It's interesting to note that Abiword uses an XML-like file format
> so that should be easy to cater for with our XML-aware interface.

> * OOo filters/converters for MS Word are not perfect because OOo
> is working blind, and customers are notorious for using the weirdest
> possible combinations of MS Word functions in their documents
> (text-boxes within embedded documents anyone?). Having said
> that, an awful lot of ".doc" documents (50%?) can be converted
> without too much hassle to .rtf and I think that's the best line of
> attack since it's not a moving target.

Better OO filters than nothing. Also, IF and WHEN we do obtain the
cooperation of OO team, it might be possible to leave alone some or all of
this MS Word stuff without risking to alter it, better than if it needs to
be converted. At least, we should contact OO team and ask them.

> That leaves one big problem of course, namely .pdf files.

They have always been a translator's nightmare and no solution exists
today - it's logical, as it's an output format, not an editing format. Can
we leave them alone in the dark for a little more while?


Henri