>Is there a way to avoid this?
Yes there is, but it's tedious.
I've filed a request for 'Force propagation' many times. Now we are two :).
A possible approach would be:
Yes, this really is an issue.
Well, I would second 'Force propagation' indeed.
But wouldn't that be found by the translation consistency check in the QA? If not, pls forget this commentary. If yes, it would be nice to have this QA checked by default or (the more complicated solution) to open a dialogue window "This project / package contains more than one file. Do a translation consistency check?" before doing the QA.
The propagation across multiple sdlxiff files does not work yet but look out for the next update.
>The propagation across multiple sdlxiff files does not work yet but look out for the next update.
That's just great. On behalf of the human population on the Northern hemisphere I say thank thee.
Ya see now, how much is involved in adding support for 'yet another file format that can be avoided via XLIFF'?
This is exactly what I meant.
I revised today my translation of an sdlxliff project and made some changes. As there where many repetitions (3 almost identical files) the changes should have been propagated throughout the 3 virtually glued files, but they were not. The client filed an inconsistency report and I had to manually update all segments. This can be a real big issue if the file is long or you have many glued files. Is there a way to avoid this?
Thanks in advance,
1 person has this problem