In the current context, in which access to valuable information is controlled by comparatively low-valued tools, two options exist to make sure that data is universally accessible: the first is for everyone to use the same tool or format, and in so doing, to establish a de facto standard; the second is to develop a format-neutral standard.

To some extent the localization industry has adopted the first model. As of 2004, 71% of companies that use TM tools make use of TRADOS* products - although not necessarily exclusively (Lommel 2004: 12) - and the developers of some other tools have developed ways to convert TM databases from their internal format to TRADOS' format and vice versa. TRADOS' products thus enjoy a status similar to that of Microsoft Word in the word-processing market in that they serve as the most widely accepted form of TM, and other products adapt to TRADOS. (In July 2005, SDL, a major competitor of TRADOS in the TM tools market, acquired TRADOS. SDL had long been one of the most public supporters of the TMX standard and had a TMX-based strategy to lure TRADOS users to switch to SDL's tool set. The impact that this acquisition will have on the TM market and TRADOS' position remains to be seen since SDL has not yet publicly revealed its intentions for the two tool sets it now owns.)

The drawback to the de facto standard is that it is in the best interest of the company controlling the de facto standard to foster dependence on the product that serves as the standard and raise barriers to prevent migration to other competing products. De facto standards thus tend to be unstable over time. If the de facto standard tool implements new features or changes functionality, workflows that depend on the ability to work with the de facto standard are easily broken. The producer of the tool that has become the de facto standard has no business obligation to help its competitors (quite the contrary), and meaningful long-term standardization is at best difficult in this model.

Creation of an independent vendor-neutral standard is the logical alternative. In this model, a standard format is developed independent of any single company Localization standards and commoditization (although individual companies may be heavily involved and have a stake in the outcome since they must implement the standard). This is the approach taken by the OSCAR (Open Standards for Container/Content Allowing Re-use) group within LISA, and by the XLIFF (XML Localization Interchange File Format) and Trans-WS (Translation Web Services) groups within OASIS.

责任编辑：admin