CafeTran

It seems across has discovered the benefits of interoperability.

From the last Tool Box Journal:

While it's theoretically possible that these files could be processed in competing translation environment tools such as SDL Trados or OmegaT, the makers of those tools would first have to develop an interface to be able to read the encrypted file (an API to do that is provided by Across). Even if they do that, however, it's not likely that your client will allow for that, especially since it's disabled by default and comes with variable levels of editability (machine translation suggestions only, commenting, and/or full edits). In summary, the project exchange via XLIFF is so limited at this point that it's less an exchange than a possibility to add some features that Across itself doesn't offer.

Interoperability in this case means

- Igor needs to develop something that fits the API

- the client needs to allow your work with CT

- you need to subscribe for this "premium feature", as the basic version of across won't have this API

No, this is not a request, this entry is just for the records and for your information. 

Good morning Torsten, How very funny, I read the same article this night, and I was just about to write a posting like yours here :-). I think the real question is, which one of the cat tools will provide first support for across. Yesterday I had to do a short text in cross web. I could downloaded an XML file with the source text which I could beautifully translate in CafeTran, but then an import of the target text into Across Was not possible :-)

BTW: I want to investigate this workflow:

• Download the Source preview for a project in CrossWeb.
• Translate it in CafeTran.
• Use CafeTran's Clipboard Workflow to have the translations inserted semi-automatically in CrossWeb.

Yes, but what for?

Obviously across does not have a real clue. Interoperability seems to threaten their business model (not to talk about any other feature that across lacks), and they prefer producing hundreds of whitepapers, instead of improving their product for the most productive part of the process.

I really ask myself how they are approaching LSP clients.

>Yes, but what for?

Obviously to not have reject potentially interesting jobs, like longish machine manuals, that have to be translated in Across.

I don't care about them. But I'd like to have the free decision to reject potentially interesting projects based on my preferences and available time. Not because of some restricted delivery format.

Working for an agency using Across? I wish I were not so stubborn.

Not sure what you are saying here. To be clear: thus far I had to refuse any Across projects. The only ones that I do are in AcrossWeb or what it's called and are review jobs. Recently they came with a tiny one, that I wanted to use to test the workflow. There is no workflow. Period.