> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pål Eivind J Nes [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:44 PM
> To: Rodolfo M. Raya
> Cc: Josep Condal;
> Subject: Re: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?
>
> >> 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.
>
> I concur. <target> should never be a copy of <source>. However, I see that
> users might opt for a string compared to none at all. Should we allow
> mechanisms for users to say that non-translated strings are good or not?
If a user does not want to translate a segment, then user can leave the segment with just <source> and no <target>. There is nothing wrong with that.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
