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.
