[i18n-activity] Order-matching items is a bad idea (#1555)

aphillips has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity:

== Order-matching items is a bad idea ==
## Proposed comment

Complex translations example
https://github.com/WICG/manifest-incubations/blob/gh-pages/translations-explainer.md#complex-translations-example

> To ensure translations for these complex constructs do not get out of sync with their counterparts in the original arrays, it’s imperative that developers pay close attention to both the number and order of array members. 

For values that can be repeated/are arrays (e.g. `icons`, `shortcuts`, `screenshots`, and `shortcuts/icons`), the design relies and depends on matching the order and number of items to be localized in the core manifest to the items in the `translations` block. This is brittle and inconsistent with how translations are actually done (as well as with sparse population that is sometimes used  with locale fallback). It means, among other things, that a manifest cannot be released unless and until every string is localized (or a placeholder provided).

It's not clear to me why the complex items don't just contain `translations` blocks, e.g.:

```
"shortcuts": [
  {
    "name": "Pet Me",
    "url": "/pet-me",
    "translations": {
        "fr": "Caressez-moi",
        "ja": "ヨシヨシして"
    }
  }
],
```

## Instructions: 

This follows the process at https://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/guidelines/review-instructions.html

1. Create the review comment you want to propose by replacing the prompts above these instructions, but **LEAVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS INTACT** 

2. Set a label to identify the spec: this starts with s: followed by the spec's short name. If you are unable to do that, ask a W3C staff contact to help.

3. Ask the i18n WG to review your comment.

4. After discussion with the i18n WG, raise an issue in the repository of the WG that owns the spec. Use the text above these instructions as the starting point for that comment, but add any suggestions that arose from the i18n WG. In the other WG's repo, add an 'i18n-needs-resolution' label to the new issue. If you think any of the participants in layout requirements task force groups would be interested in following the discussion, add also the appropriate i18n-\*lreq label(s).

5. Delete the text below that says 'url_for_the_issue_raised', then add in its place the URL for the issue you raised in the other WG's repository. Do NOT remove the initial '§ '. Do NOT use \[...](...) notation – you need to delete the placeholder, then paste the URL.

6. Remove the 'pending' label, and add a 'needs-resolution' tag to this tracker issue. 

7. If you added an \*lreq label, add the label 'spec-type-issue', add the corresponding language label, and a label to indicate the relevant typographic feature(s), eg. 'i:line_breaking'. The latter represent categories related to the Language Enablement Index, and all start with i:.

8. Edit this issue to **REMOVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS & THE PROPOSED COMMENT**, ie. the line below that is '---' and all the text before it to the very start of the issue.

---


**This is a tracker issue.** Only discuss things here if they are i18n WG internal meta-discussions about the issue. **Contribute to the actual discussion at the following link:**


§ url_for_the_issue_raised


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1555 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2022 17:02:12 UTC