英语论文网

mmunity, as open source tools for these technologies do
not exist at present. Thus, when we present models incorporating
these standards, we therefore build on best practices from the wider
industry and not current practices from OSS localisation alone.
This research is a first look at how open source can benefit from
standards-based localisation formats; hence, much of the focus of
the paper is to identify areas needing further research. Nevertheless,
this paper builds a solid foundation for further research, providing a
solution for representing the PO format in XLIFF, and arguing the
merits of XLIFF as a common resource format in all open source
localisation processes.
This paper is organised as follows: in Section 2 we provide a thorough
survey of the relevant localisation and internationalisation
standards, and current practices in open source localisation. Section
3 presents our main result, a canonical mapping of the PO format to
XLIFF. We then look at how this format can be incorporated into
existing build systems and development processes (Section 4).
Section 5 builds on these foundations, discussing the need for other
exchange standards in open source localisation. We conclude, in
Section 6, by summarising the findings of this paper, and by examining
the future of OSS localisation.
Adopting Standards-based XML File Formats in Open Source Localisation By Asgeir Frimannsson and James M. Hogan, School of Software Engineering and Data Communications, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. In recent years, major localisation vendors and key standards organisations have agreed on open XML-based standards
for storage and exchange of data in the localisation process: The Translation Memory eXchange (TMX) file format for
exchanging translation memory data, the TermBase eXchange (TBX) format for terminology exchange, and the XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) for extracting and storing locale-dependent resources in a common file
format. Up until recently, very few open source tools have supported these formats, and hence very few open source
projects have adopted them in the localisation process. A majority of open source applications continue to use Gettext
and the Portable Object (PO) file format. This paper evaluates the case for adopting XLIFF in localisation processes
currently based on the Gettext toolkit, and examines the usefulness of other standards such as TMX, TBX and Translation Web Services (TWS) in these processes. James M. Hogan Asgeir Frimannsson 10 LOCALISATION FOCUS RESEARCH.loc DECEMBER 2005 Research 2 Background 2.1 Open Source Localisation The term ‘open source’ relates to the practice of freely sharing access
to the source code of a product, allowing anyone to extend or modify
a piece of software. The open source development process has
been described as a user-driven, just-in-time approach, driven by a
global developer community (Berglund and Priestly, 2001). Development is driven by demand for the product within this community,
and new features are implemented as a result of requests
from the user base. Raymond (2000) describes the process as a
‘bazaar’ where software is released early and often, the software
process is open and transparent and work is delegated as much as
possible. In contrast, traditional software is developed by closed
teams having long release cycles and is