RE: [xliff] cos-301 proposed changed text

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi David, all,

Just a note so I’m sure we have all the same interpretation:
When you said:

> Currently I believe it is possible to specify order as follows
> <unit>
> <segment>
>  <source>source1</source>
>  <target>target1</target>
> </segment>
>  <segment>
>  <source>source2</source>
>  <target>target2</target>
> </segment>
> <segment>
>  <source>source3</source>
>  <target order="1">target3</target>
> </segment>
> </unit>

That markup is incorrect because the implicit order of target1 is the same as the explicit order of target3.

And also:

> In the above
> target3 corresponds to source1 , target1 to source2, and target2 to source3.

It depends what you mean by 'corresponds': target3 still 'corresponds' to source3 not source1 (i.e. target3 is still the translation of source3). The order attribute only changes how the sequence of the targets is arranged. That is, when you merge you paragraph that was: "source1 source2 source3" the translated paragraph will show as "target3 target2 target1" (assuming you fixed the markup and added order='3' to target1.


> I believe that currently it is possible to explicitly set 
> order only on some targets.

Yes. In the example above target2 would have no explicite order.

> I see that Fredrik's additional Constraint aimed 
> to prohibit this.

No, it aims at making sure an implicit order and an explicit order don't have the same value.


I hope that helps,
Cheers,
-ys