export to bilingual Word table (and import back)?

[Dominique Pivard]

Hi!

Is there in CafeTran a feature similar to DéjàVu's External View,
memoQ's Two-column RTF, Wordfast Pro's Bilingual Review or SDL Trados
Studio's External Review? I haven't been able to find it and I don't
think I've ever seen it mentioned on the list. If it doesn't exist, I
think it would be a feature worth samsunging.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Igor Kmitowski]

Hi Dominique,

See the menu Project | Save project as... and select HTML from the
drop-down list. After saving it, you can open the exported HTML file in a
browser, MS Word or Open(Libre)Office.

Igor

--
Igor Kmitowski
Translator and Java developer
CafeTran website: http://www.cafetran.com
CafeTran support: cafetran...@gmail.com

[Hans List]

On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Igor Kmitowski <cafetran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dominique,
>
> See the menu Project | Save project as... and select HTML from the drop-down list. After saving it, you can open the exported HTML file in a browser, MS Word or Open(Libre)Office.
>

But you cannot reimport with corrections from the external revisor. Yet.

> Igor
>
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Is there in CafeTran a feature similar to DéjàVu's External View,
>> memoQ's Two-column RTF, Wordfast Pro's Bilingual Review or SDL Trados
>> Studio's External Review? I haven't been able to find it and I don't
>> think I've ever seen it mentioned on the list. If it doesn't exist, I
>> think it would be a feature worth samsunging.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dominique
>>
>
>
> --
> Igor Kmitowski
> Translator and Java developer
> CafeTran website: http://www.cafetran.com
> CafeTran support: cafetran...@gmail.com
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslato...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Igor Kmitowski]

True, it is a one-way trip.

> But you cannot reimport with corrections from the external revisor. Yet.

[Hans List]

Reimport would require a visible tag placeholder in the Word table. Tag verification on import.

Op 3 jul. 2013 23:51 schreef "Igor Kmitowski" <cafetran...@gmail.com> het volgende:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslators+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dominique Pivard]

On 4 July 2013 00:45, Hans List <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Igor Kmitowski <cafetran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> See the menu Project | Save project as... and select HTML from the drop-down list. After saving it, you can open the exported HTML file in a browser, MS Word or Open(Libre)Office.
>
> But you cannot reimport with corrections from the external revisor. Yet.

Export to (and reimport from) RTF is *very* popular among many users
of the "mainstream" tools for reviewing purposes, either by yourself,
or by someone else (who may not be using the same tool, or even be a
translator at all). I'm sure Michael, Selcuk and many others will
agree.

RTF is better than HTML, because it is (more easily) editable. It also
lets you track changes.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Dominique Pivard]

On 4 July 2013 00:51, Igor Kmitowski <cafetran...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Igor,

> True, it is a one-way trip.

Just in case you want to see how other tools do it, you can have a look at:

http://wordfast.fi/blog/cat-tools/2012/09/03/export-to-bilingual-word-table-from-mainstream-cat-tools/

In that video, I don't show how to import it back, but this can be
done with all the tools mentioned. The fact it's a round-trip is what
makes the feature valuable.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Hans list]

On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Dominique Pivard <domi...@gmail.com> wrote:

RTF is better than HTML, because it is (more easily) editable. It also
lets you track changes.

Yes that's nice and useful (mice are museful).

If Igor would decide to offer this feature, a way to represent tags in the RTF is needed. (Inside the TMX and probably in the XLIFF too the tag POSITIONS are stored.) So that the revisor can manipulate the tags. The representation should be unobtrusive yet easy to edit/insert. So subscript red is not a good candidate for this. I have no idea (yet) what might be a good rep.

[Hans list]

On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Dominique Pivard <domi...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://wordfast.fi/blog/cat-tools/2012/09/03/export-to-bilingual-word-table-from-mainstream-cat-tools/

Like!

Top-down table would be nice too, target language rows in an alternating colour (light yellow?), no table cell lines needed then (less ink).

Activate Track changes for the RTF by default is a good idea.

Q: Can the revisor add bold, italics, underlined in the mQ table?

[Dominique Pivard]

On 4 July 2013 10:00, Hans list <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Q: Can the revisor add bold, italics, underlined in the mQ table?

Yes, and they will show up as bold/italic/underlined in memoQ, once
re-imported. With the latest version (2013 aka 6.5), you can also do
it with subscript and superscript.

memoQ definitely has the best table format of all tools that have this
feature, because the most common attributes show up WYSIWYG. Studio,
which is fully WYSIWYG in its own editor, puts tags all over the place
in its exported External View.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Hans list]

On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Dominique Pivard <domi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Studio,
which is fully WYSIWYG in its own editor, puts tags all over the place
in its exported External View.

Yes it looks awful and totally distracting. I image that revisers often aren't computer-minded and will have a heart attack when they receive such a table.

[Hans list]

On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Dominique Pivard <domi...@gmail.com> wrote:

you can also do
it with subscript and superscript.

CafeTran also displays subscript wysiwyg – just look at those tiny red numbers …

(ducking)

[Rene]

Just to chime in: I think RTF is a very useful format, which I use for all my reference files. But the "track changes" function in Word is a pain in the behind, it is horrible to work with, and it adds unnecessary complexity to the data. Just my 2 yen worth.

Rene

--

[Dominique Pivard]

On 4 July 2013 10:36, Rene <Yoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to chime in: I think RTF is a very useful format, which I use for all
> my reference files. But the "track changes" function in Word is a pain in
> the behind, it is horrible to work with, and it adds unnecessary complexity
> to the data. Just my 2 yen worth.

Track changes is not a feature you *have to* use if you don't want to.
I personally work a lot with a colleague for whom I act as a reviewer
(and vice-versa). Although we are both memoQ users (and we could do
the reviewing inside memoQ), it's the "two-column" RTF we send each
other for reviewing. We both use track changes to indicate changes
made to the translation. We do put comments (if any) in the comment
column of the RTF. This workflow works very well for both of us.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Selcuk Akyuz]

A translator's life without EV RTF files should be very difficult.

- MS Word's spell-check
- Add comments
- Use macros
- Share projects with translators/proofreaders who hate CAT tools
- Useful for alignment
- Track changes

I use EV everyday for all of the features listed above.

FWIW I prefer side-by-side view.

Selcuk

[Dominique Pivard]

Just curious: is this feature (present in all "big league" tools)
planned at some point in CafeTran? I'm asking because I've seen many
new features (nicely summarized by Michael) added lately.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Michael Beijer]

Hi Dominique,

As far as I know Igor is working on something along those lines. I think Igor is working on improving the HTML export and adding RTF to it as we'll.

We also just got (in the beta) the ability to export the source segment text straight to the MS Word comments, and the new 'Document note' to the header of the HTML exports.

Michael

Sent from my iPad

[Hans List]

Op 31 jul. 2013 17:24 schreef "Michael Beijer" <mic...@wordbook.nl> het volgende:

>
> Hi Dominique,
>
> As far as I know Igor is working on something along those lines. I think Igor is working on improving the HTML export and adding RTF to it as we'll.
>
> We also just got (in the beta) the ability to export the source segment text straight to the MS Word comments, and the new 'Document note' to the header of the HTML exports.
>
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

Yeah it is a real pity that your wife doesn't allow you to take it with you to Greece ;)

[Igor Kmitowski]

Hi Dominique,

The feature has been greatly improved recently. It is a nice-looking html
table (with comments) which can be edited by office suites.

Well, there are two kinds of request:

1. By CT users who really need it in their jobs.
2. By users who point out that something is missing in CT when compared to
another CAT.

The priority is #1 but when I have more free time I look into #2. To
import edited html back into CafeTran should be available sometime.
However, first things first.

Cheers,
Igor

[Hans List]

Hi Igor, Dominique,

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Igor Kmitowski <cafetran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. By users who point out that something is missing in CT when compared to another CAT.

I think that in many cases 'users' can be replaced here with 'reviewers', 'colleagues', 'translators' etc.

Hans

[Michael Beijer]

Hi Igor,

About that: 

‘The feature has been greatly improved recently. It is a nice-looking html table (with comments) which can be edited by office suites.’

I recently tried that – editing one of the bilingual HTML review files in an Office suite (Word 2013), and also in Dreamweaver, but for some reason it was very slow. Do you think it might not be better to also have it export to doc/docx/rtf, as MS Word etc. tends to prefer these to HTML. HTML is better for viewing (opens really fast in your browser and doesn't require an office suite). However, RTF is better for editing.

Michael

Michael Beijer

Translator & Terminologist

(Dutch/Flemish into English)
46 Priory Street, Lewes, 

East Sussex BN7 1HJ, 

United Kingdom.

Tel. +44 (0)1273 483881

Mob. +44 (0)797 093 5608

michael@wordbook.nl

Skype/Twitter: michaelbeijer

iMessage: mic...@wordbook.nl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslators+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Hans List]

Hi Michael,

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Michael Beijer <mic...@wordbook.nl> wrote:

> I recently tried that – editing one of the bilingual HTML review files in an Office suite (Word 2013), and also in Dreamweaver, but for some reason it was very slow.

That is a Word "feature". Word's handling of HTML is "berucht".

Dreamweaver is a design program, not suited for large amounts of text.

Please get Bluegriffon: http://bluegriffon.org/pages/Download

Just tested with 24 K of words.

RTF is an old format, RTF files can get corrupted very easily. HTML is readable for humans and easy to fix.

If you want to use Word: turn off page view, assign the correct languages to the columns.

Libre/OpenOffice perform better here. But like I said: Bluegriffon is the choice of tool here.

Hans

[Hans van den Broek]

On 1 Aug 2013, at 20:24, Hans List wrote:

> RTF is an old format, RTF files can get corrupted very easily.

Are you sure?

> Libre/OpenOffice perform better here. But like I said: Bluegriffon is the choice of tool here.

Why would an HTML editor be the tool of choice for a bilingual file?

Cheers,

Hans

--

Hans van den Broek
Schrijf-, vertaal- en redigeerwerk
Peleman Rejowinangun KG1/513
RT029 RW009
Yogyakarta 55171
Indonesia
T +62 (0)85868607333
SKYPE: hanstranslations
transl...@hansvandenbroek.eu
http://cafetran4mac.blogspot.com
Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now

[Hans List]

On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Hans van den Broek <ir...@indo.net.id> wrote:

>
> On 1 Aug 2013, at 20:24, Hans List wrote:
>
>> RTF is an old format, RTF files can get corrupted very easily.
>
> Are you sure?

Quite

>
>> Libre/OpenOffice perform better here. But like I said: Bluegriffon is the choice of tool here.
>
> Why would an HTML editor be the tool of choice for a bilingual file?

Since the file format to open is HTML.

[Hans van den Broek]

On 1 Aug 2013, at 20:43, Hans List wrote:

> Since the file format to open is HTML.

But opening the file is only one aspect of (linguistic) editing. Wait, it's not even an aspect of editing.

[Hans van den Broek]

On 1 Aug 2013, at 20:43, Hans List wrote:

>>> RTF is an old format, RTF files can get corrupted very easily.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Quite

An old format it is. But I doubt if it can get corrupted easily, although there's an issue with comments. I don't know about later versions of DejaVu, but DV3 converted all Word files to RTF (using Word) before importing and back after translating, and I never encountered a corrupted translated file.

[Igor Kmitowski]

I don't really think there is much difference here between html and rtf. Html has this advantage to add comments and open it in a browser.

Igor

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslato...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Beijer]

RTF is also the format Kilgray have chosen for memoQ's bilingual review files.

Atril have chosen RTF and HTML.

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGE4xfXfPSM ->

Personally, I would prefer .docx (or .doc), but in terms of compatibility, RTF might be better. 

Although, having just said that, who the hell can't open a doc/docx these days? I know these files are meant to be openable by reviewers, proofreaders, agencies, etc. However, if they can't even open a .docx file in the year 2013, I'd say they don’t deserve to open my bilingual review file;)

--- On a slight tangent: We need to think of a standard term for these files (for the UI/wiki/definitions page, etc.). At the moment, since they are HTML, I have called them ‘Bilingual HTML review files’ on the definitions page: http://cafetran.wikidot.com/definitions 

Michael

PS: About RTF corruption: I have never had a problem with an RTF file, and, most tools seem to have chosen to use it as their bilingual review files.

Michael Beijer

Translator & Terminologist

(Dutch/Flemish into English)
46 Priory Street, Lewes, 

East Sussex BN7 1HJ, 

United Kingdom.

Tel. +44 (0)1273 483881

Mob. +44 (0)797 093 5608

michael@wordbook.nl

Skype/Twitter: michaelbeijer

iMessage: mic...@wordbook.nl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslato...@googlegroups.com.

[Igor Kmitowski]

Html bilingual review files:

CT since 2013

Is it the first one and the only one? :)

Igor

[Igor Kmitowski]

Aah,  Michael mentioned Atril as html choice too

[Michael Beijer]

I think the problem is that most people you send such a file with will just double click it and it will open in their browser. They can't edit it in their browser. If they want to edit it, they will then have to select a program to open it with. Everyone will choose something different. Those that choose to open it in MS Word or Dreameaver will not be happy. Editing the file will be like being stuck in treacle. Hans, I am just now trying Blue Griffon, but so far have found that it takes forever to open (‘Not responding’), and now that it is open it is sloooooooooooow. That is, it is unusable on my computer. I would therefore say that HTML is way too much trouble to expect the reviewer/client to go through just to open/edit our bilingual review file. 

We need the easiest format to open/edit these files in, which would be:

RTF, or

DOC/DOCX

Michael

[Dominique Pivard]

Hi Igor,

I'm not a user, nor a license holder (mostly an "industry observer"!),
and I wasn't presenting a "user request". However, I know the
possibility to export a translation to an *editable* bilingual table
and to reimport it back is a very popular feature among many users of
those tools that support it.

Unfortunately, HTML doesn't cut it in my view, no matter how greatly
improved. In a browser, you have access to the same spellchecker as in
dedicated CAT tools (while in Word, you have access to the MS Office
spellchecker, which is better than Hunspell & Co for most languages).
As already stated by Michael, HTML is OK for viewing, but not for
editing (few people have HTML editors installed on their computers,
most of them would open HTML files in a browser). Also, Word supports
track changes: I know the usual MS haters will dismiss track changes
as useless, but again, many people (me included) find it very useful,
precisely for the purpose of reviewing someone's translation.

This is why a bilingual review would need to be in some Word format,
whether it is RTF or DOCX doesn't really matter. RTF is being used by
other tools mostly for legacy reasons: DV introduced the feature more
than 10 years ago, when DOCX didn't exist. memoQ implemented it in
2009 (if memory serves), when many people were still using Office 2003
and older. Today, DOCX would make plain sense, especially since it's a
compressed format.

Cheers,

Dominique

[Dominique Pivard]

On 1 August 2013 16:24, Hans List <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:

> RTF is an old format, RTF files can get corrupted very easily.

It is true RTF is old. It is also true *some* RTF can get corrupted:
we are talking of RTF being created by unknown PDF converters, with
lots of images, complex layouts etc. However, the kind of RTF tables
created by CAT tools are rather simple (no fancy layouts, images etc)
and they always have the same format. I've never ever experienced a
case of corruption with an two-column RTF created by memoQ, and I
don't recall having seen reports of corrupted external views on the DV
list either (Selçuk can probably confirm, as a long-time DV user).

However, RTF doesn't need to be the file format used in 2013 for a
bilingual review: DOCX would be just fine. The main point is it has to
be editable in Word (or perhaps OpenOffice too, for the usual MS
haters or the odd Linux user without access to MS Office).

> HTML is readable for humans and easy to fix.

Sorry, doesn't cut it. When I review a colleague's translation, I'm
not "fixing" things: I need to be able to show what changes I have
made (track changes) and - in some cases - to insert comments in order
to justify these changes. For that, you need more than something that
is "readable for humans".

Cheers,

Dominique

[Hans List]

I must admit that I never use the.review feature myself.so I'm not the person to make suggestions here. Michael has very different needs so I noticed :) which is a good thing per se.

Had a good holiday?

Op 3 aug. 2013 06:56 schreef "Dominique Pivard" <domi...@gmail.com> het volgende:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CafeTranslators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cafetranslato...@googlegroups.com.

[Dominique Pivard]

On 3 August 2013 08:10, Hans List <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I must admit that I never use the.review feature myself.so I'm not the
> person to make suggestions here. Michael has very different needs so I
> noticed :) which is a good thing per se.

Michael isn't the only one who is using/missing a Word-based bilingual review.

> Had a good holiday?

It's not over, one more week to go. Very active, thanks to my Fitbit
One (https://www.fitbit.com/uk/one). Here is what yesterday (my record
day so far, after four months) looked like for me:

http://screencast.com/t/xs2wjpRB8F

Cheers,

Dominique

[Igor Kmitowski]

Hello Dominique,

I am still considering the best way to go. HTML seems to be very universal
viewed in web browsers, edited both by Libre(Open)Office and Ms Word, and
even can be smartly edited inside a web browser such as here:

http://www.kuahla.com/jquerydemo/demo7c.html

However, Micheal's and your arguments are valid too. I would only discard
the spellchecker differences between Hunspell and Word. If it is used by
Mac OS X, it cannot be that inferior to Word's spellchecker :)

Cheers,
Igor

[Martin Brüggemeier]

Am 03.08.2013 09:13, schrieb Dominique Pivard:
> On 3 August 2013 08:10, Hans List <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I must admit that I never use the.review feature myself.so I'm not the
>> person to make suggestions here. Michael has very different needs so I
>> noticed :) which is a good thing per se.
>
> Michael isn't the only one who is using/missing a Word-based bilingual review.
>

Yes. That's right. I miss such a Cafetran feature a bit too (and I
suppose some others also do).

I often exchange such bilingual Word tables (created with Wordfast
Anywhere) with colleagues for proofreading. The translator can view all
the proofreader's tracked (and marked) changes and then either accept or
reject each change (or all of them) and reimport the proofread document.
It would really be great if such a workflow were possible with Cafetran too.

Have a nice weekend!
Martin

--
Martin Br�ggemeier
Diplom-�bersetzer/Translator (EN <> DE, ES > DE)
Josefstr. 27, D-48683 Ahaus
Tel.: +49 (0) 2561 7559073
Fax: +49 (0) 2561 7559074
Mobil: +49 (0) 1578 7559075

[clear...@gmail.com]

We are trying out CafeTran and like what we´ve LEARNED so far, which is just barely starting.  We're considering using it instead of Trados, which we've been using and enjoying but it's so expensive. 

I sent a bilingual file for review and got it back in Word with track changes. This is my very first translation in CafeTran, but I´m already running out of the free trial time (not enough time to learn it and keep up with translation schedule, converted TB to glossary--not completely successful, figure out how to include my TM, etc. plus ice on roads kept me from work a whole week...). 

 I accepted and rejected and then saved the finalized version (no track changes remaining) , overwriting the original version that I had exported. I am SURE that I overwrote it. Then I went into Project, Import bilingual document, selected the file I had just saved, but nothing seemed to happen.  So then I opened the project again and it shows my original translation, not with the changes!  I´ve searched the help index and forum and haven´t found the specific steps to take other than what I already did (and I took more steps than what are in the help section).  What should i have done differently?  I couldn't even manually make the changes because the TU section shows at the bottom part of the screen where the TM appears, not at the top where you do the translating (which was all blank).  Thankfully I had done a preview before sending the file for review and it showed up in my folder, so I was able to just open it, make the changes manually, and save the preview as the actual target document!  Help!

[Igor Kmitowski]

Hello,

Did you follow the below steps?

1. Project > Export as bilingual document...
2. Review the bilingual document in Word making necessary changes.
3. Project > Import bilingual document... (importing back to Project the
reviewed bilingual Word document)

Igor

>> > On 3 August 2013 08:10, Hans List <hans...@gmail.com <javascript:>>

[clear...@gmail.com]

Yes.  But nothing seemed to happen.  No text appeared.  So then I just opened the project but it didn't show the changes.  Was I supposed to have the original project open when importing the bilingual document?

[Hans list]

Yes