[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pål Eivind J Nes [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:13 PM > To: Rodolfo M. Raya > Cc: Josep Condal; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished? > > > I did not expect that there would be a need for defining what translation is, > but XLIFF 2.0 will probably need to include a definition. > > An original text is always initial. How else could one start? Start with original (or "initial") text stored in <source> elements. Put translations in <target> elements. > Any tool processing XLIFF should treat missing and empty target-elements > the same as above. There is no information, so we should default to giving > none. > > Feel free to set me straight. :) Any tool that sees that a <target> element is missing can offer to insert a <target> element in the XLIFF file as a container for the translation of the sibling <source> element. Notice that a <target> element is a container for a translation, not a container for a copy of <source>. There are, of course, cases in which the source text and its translations are the same, like when the source text is a brand name. These cases are exceptions, not the rule. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya email@example.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com