Hi,
I'm experiencing some troubles, as apparently Studio 2017 creates return packages with the following format: .sdlrpx.wsxz
Studio 2015 only creates return packages in .sdlrpx, which is the format the client wants.
Are there any solutions to make sure to have return packages with Studio 2017 in .sdlrpx?
Thanks for your inputs!
Ana-Maria Matefi | RWS Group
_____
Design your own training!
You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear?
Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub
Ana-Maria Matefi | RWS Group
_____
Design your own training!
You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear?
Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub
Unknown said:1) The client sends a .WSXZ format packet, which is never an issue.
2) The translator works on it, and sends back to us a return package, as usual. The difference now is that the translator changed from 2015 to 2017 Studio version, and the format of his return packages seems to now be .sdlrpx.wsxz (and not any more simply .sdlrpx), which creates problems to us when uploading it to our platform.
The format of a return package from Studio 2015 and earlier has always been this way. I just tested a package in Studio 2015 and see this:
I recall there being a bug in a much older version that actually named the package *.SDLRPX and didn't add the correct extension and this caused problems for WorldServer users because WorldServer expects to see WSXZ at the end.
Please double check that you are not doing anything different. If you send a package from Studio it then it will always come back with the SDLRPX extension. But if you send a package from WorldServer, and not through Studio first, then it will always have a WSXZ extension.
This article might be helpful:
https://multifarious.filkin.com/2012/12/17/working-with-packages/
If you don't agree with any of this then perhaps we can set up a quick call and you can show me?
Paul Filkin | RWS Group
________________________
Design your own training!
You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear?
Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub
Check the INTERNAL CONTENT of the package (it's notoriously known that it's a simple ZIP file, so use your favorite archiver like WinZip, WinRAR, etc. to look inside the package) and see immediately what format it is.
It's not uncommon that translators do weird things like manually changing/adding extensions in a (clueless) attempts to deliver the format they were asked to... :-\
So I'm wondering if the translator simply didn't (cluelessly) save as "blabla.sdlrpx" in a hope to "save as SDLRPX package", but Studio correctly added the proper "wsxz" extension because the REAL format of the package is - and MUST BE! - corresponding to the source package format.
If you put WorldServer package (wsxz) IN Studio, you only get WorldServer package (wsxz) OUT of Studio.
If you put Studio package (sdlppx) IN Studio, you only get Studio package (sdlrpx) OUT of Studio.
Nothing else. No matter what extension you manually put in the filename.
https://docs.sdl.com/LiveContent/content/en-US/SDL%20Trados%20Studio%20Help-v4/GUID-CA8BAE09-94E5-42E0-816A-2460F98447BD
Unknown said:Aha, I see... if Studio 2015 creates these "double extensions", then I bet the "problem" is the damned Windows 'hide extensions for known file types' feature :(
People have no clue that they are not seeing the real extension, but actually a part of filename...
That's a very good point Evzen... many users work without showing the extensions so this could easily be a project manager just not seeing the real extension.
Unknown said:Inventor of this "feature" should burn in hell forever...
Perhaps a little harsh ;-)
Paul Filkin | RWS Group
________________________
Design your own training!
You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear?
Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub
Unknown said:Aha, I see... if Studio 2015 creates these "double extensions", then I bet the "problem" is the damned Windows 'hide extensions for known file types' feature :(
People have no clue that they are not seeing the real extension, but actually a part of filename...
That's a very good point Evzen... many users work without showing the extensions so this could easily be a project manager just not seeing the real extension.
Unknown said:Inventor of this "feature" should burn in hell forever...
Perhaps a little harsh ;-)
Paul Filkin | RWS Group
________________________
Design your own training!
You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear?
Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub
Translate
