9 February 2007
Microsoft Glossaries: Cancel or Allow?
Many years ago, Microsoft decided to make available the software glossaries for all their products in MSDN and as a free download. This was shocking at first, as it was lot of IP and potentially, trade secrets.
But the reasoning behind was clear, if Microsoft wanted to be “the platform” globally they had to open up to the entire ecosystem also globally. Steve Ballmer made it very clear that it was not about users, but developers. And Developers, and by extension, localizers, need to have useful and full access to the platform information to build a true ecosystem.
We developed ApSIC Xbench, a free download, with a view to provide a convenient access to bilingual information, and that included support for the Microsoft Software Glossaries in its .csv form.
Late last year, Microsoft decided to pull out the software glossaries and replace it by a Master Glossary. The announcement mentioned that former software glossaries would continue to be available to MSDN subscribers. But it did not mean that they are available. We at ApSIC are subscribers of MSDN Universal Edition and the latest software glossaries are as of July 2006. This means: no Vista glossaries, no Office 2007 glossaries, no Exchange 2007 glossaries.
I think that with decision is moving away from the role of being the platform. It is simply more difficult and expensive for Microsoft hardware and software partners to integrate globally and seamlessly with the platform.
Hey, what about the master glossary? IMHO, a master glossary helps you to translate something that ’smells’ like the platform, but professional translation requires access to the exact strings in any relevant product to provide international users with a true high quality experience.
And there is a fundamental problem with a master glossary: there is no single market force to push to make it right. No end user wants a master glossary. End users want software that they can understand well. The software strings should become the master glossary, because localized software “wants” to be clear and accurate if it has to sell well. Actually, I would symptom it as a big problem if software glossaries cannot become the real master glossary after the product has shipped.
At least now we have Mac OS X glossaries (which we now support in ApSIC Xbench 2.7), which seems to follow as a publicly extensive available reference.
I don’t discard that Microsoft sees publishing software glossaries as a security threat (hence the title of this post). I hope they reconsider the value they bring to the entire ecosystem by continuing to be a platform and that we see the glossaries available publicly again in the future.
posted by Josep Condal