Pagina's in het onderwerp: < [1 2] |
Ocelot 2.2: Open Source CAT tool De persoon die dit onderwerp heeft geplaatst: FrancescoP
|
Didier Briel Frankrijk Local time: 16:00 Engels naar Frans + ... |
Samuel Murray Nederland Local time: 16:00 Lid 2006 Engels naar Afrikaans + ... @Didier, I was speaking like a user | Dec 23, 2016 |
Didier Briel wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: ...whose author had forked from OmegaT many years ago and added some of his own customisations, some of which were eventually included in OmegaT as well. Nothing from OmegaT+ was used in OmegaT. ... Perhaps we developed similar features... Yes, I was speaking like a user, not like a developer. OmegaT+ has a feature that does/accomplishes X, and since then OmegaT also got a feature that does/accomplishes X. Didier Briel wrote: Your links... ...still don't work, even after fixing it.
[Edited at 2016-12-23 12:09 GMT] | | |
Samuel Murray Nederland Local time: 16:00 Lid 2006 Engels naar Afrikaans + ... @Francesco, bringing the discussion back to Ocelot | Dec 23, 2016 |
FrancescoP wrote: I think all of these problems are easy fixes and I can add them to the backlog. What else do you think it would make Ocelot an attractive CAT tool for freelancers? I don't think that there is hope for Ocelot as a CAT tool. There are too many things missing. And even if you add those things, no-one is going to switch to Ocelot unless Ocelot provides something crucially more than the user gets elsewhere. Ocelot should focus on that which it does best, and improve itself for that purpose, i.e. as an LQA assistant. There may be some hope for Ocelot as an XLIFF editor, but only if it doesn't render the XLIFF files unusable in their original programs, and only if it greatly, greatly improves its editing capabilities. There is certainly a gap in the market for a better non-CAT XLIFF editor. I can think of only Heartsome/Araya and Virtaal -- do you know of any other XLIFF editors that are primarily XLIFF editors and not just CAT tools that happen to have XLIFF editing capability? | | |
CafeTran Training (X) Nederland Local time: 16:00
Samuel Murray wrote: do you know of any other XLIFF editors that are primarily XLIFF editors and not just CAT tools that happen to have XLIFF editing capability? https://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/XLIFF | |
|
|
FrancescoP Verenigde Staten Local time: 07:00 Engels naar Italiaans + ... ONDERWERPSTARTER Thank you Samuel | Dec 23, 2016 |
You are being very helpful. I just run a quick test on OmegaT and it doesn't seem to support WorldServer exported xlif format for some reasons. One thing that surprises me is the old fashion approach of the editor, with the target below the source instead of next to it. It has a 1980s feel. ... See more You are being very helpful. I just run a quick test on OmegaT and it doesn't seem to support WorldServer exported xlif format for some reasons. One thing that surprises me is the old fashion approach of the editor, with the target below the source instead of next to it. It has a 1980s feel. caricare immagini ▲ Collapse | | |
Didier Briel Frankrijk Local time: 16:00 Engels naar Frans + ... Try the Okapi plugin | Dec 23, 2016 |
FrancescoP wrote: You are being very helpful. I just run a quick test on OmegaT and it doesn't seem to support WorldServer exported xlif format for some reasons. You should try the Okapi plugin: http://okapiframework.org/wiki/index.php?title=Okapi_Filters_Plugin_for_OmegaT Can you send me the file privately? The display I see looks strange, with tags not interpreted. Didier | | |
FrancescoP Verenigde Staten Local time: 07:00 Engels naar Italiaans + ... ONDERWERPSTARTER Merci Didier! | Dec 23, 2016 |
I installed the Okapi plug-in and now the segmentation is correct: upload Very helpful, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge! | | |
Samuel Murray Nederland Local time: 16:00 Lid 2006 Engels naar Afrikaans + ... Side by side view in OmegaT | Dec 23, 2016 |
FrancescoP wrote: I just run a quick test on OmegaT and ... one thing that surprises me is the old fashion approach of the editor, with the target below the source instead of next to it. Many translators actually prefer that. Such translators only tolerate side-by-side in tools like Trados because those tools don't offer any alternative view. But you're welcome to arrange for the side-by-side view as an option to be developed, if you think it will increase your productivity by much. | |
|
|
FrancescoP Verenigde Staten Local time: 07:00 Engels naar Italiaans + ... ONDERWERPSTARTER What CAT tool you use | Dec 23, 2016 |
Samuel Murray wrote: FrancescoP wrote: I just run a quick test on OmegaT and ... one thing that surprises me is the old fashion approach of the editor, with the target below the source instead of next to it. Many translators actually prefer that. Such translators only tolerate side-by-side in tools like Trados because those tools don't offer any alternative view. But you're welcome to arrange for the side-by-side view as an option to be developed, if you think it will increase your productivity by much. So what is your preferred CAT tool, Samuel? And why do you like it so much? | | |
Samuel Murray Nederland Local time: 16:00 Lid 2006 Engels naar Afrikaans + ... I use Wordfast | Dec 24, 2016 |
FrancescoP wrote: So what is your preferred CAT tool, Samuel? And why do you like it so much? I use Wordfast Classic. I do not "like" it. But I'm used to it. And my fingers are used to it. It lacks many features that other CAT tools have (e.g. filtering of segments, automatic segment propagation) and the current version lacks some features the older versions had (e.g. reliable match comparison, manual glossary stemming), and there are some things that wished were different (e.g. updating the active TM when an unedited match comes from a reference TM). And there are some things that I'm just used to (e.g. the fact that TMs and glossaries are plain text files, which means that most of my TM and glossary management is be done by copy/pasting human readable text). But mostly I keep using it because my fingers are used to it. Finger memory affects translation speed and ease of use more than anything else. But that is not relevant in a discussion of a new CAT tool. | | |
Pagina's in het onderwerp: < [1 2] |