po vs. xliff

[Elros Cyriatan <cyriatan fastmail fm>]

Hi,
Although I'm translating free software for several years (both for Gnome and for
the GNU TP; for Dutch), I'm new to this list. Reading through the thread, several
questions came up that might contribute to the discussion:

Is XLIFF better suited for GUIs? I've seen the proof that it's possible with PO, but
really only with a hack. (I mean that strings identical in content are assumed to
be identical in meaning, so that hacks like File->New are needed.)

How does XLIFF work with plurals and `difficult' language properties, such as
declinations and right-to-left writing? And without adding too much work for
languages that don't have these hard properties?

Does XLIFF provide smart ways to prevent formatting problems (in the sense of
printf formatting codes)? I've read that the lack of this in PO is a disadvantage,
so I assume the answer is yes. (If so, how does it do this, in source code?)


If it's not simply converted to MO files:

How is the XLIFF source code actually used in applications? Does it have a
binary counterpart (such as MO for PO files) for speed? (I think it's essential that
the overhead be limited) What library does it use, is it light and usable for systems
with serious memory/power constraints?

How does it handle inexisting or partial translations when used in applications?
Is it as flexible as PO, or does it scream and yell?


I'm personally quite happy with the PO format, but I see its limitations and I'm
very interested in whether XLIFF can solve them. I at least like the fact that it might
be better suited for validation. If the tools are there and existing translations can be
converted, I don't really see a problem for switching (although it might be wise to
have a pilot before actually doing the switch). In the end, I think it would be preferable
to have a single format for both messages and documentation.

With regards,
Elros

-- 
 
  Elros Cyriatan
  89D0A011957D96020E7D1D16B37D496E440D660A