Hi Adina,

It would be much more helpful if you could post your html file as we could offer more appropriate advice, but it sounds as though you have script embedded in your html and will need to handle it with this option:

You'll need to create rules for your embedded plain text so it's only extracting the parts you need to translate.

However, I'm not 100% this is the answer because in reality I would expect to see nothing extracted if it was using the script element.  So seeing your file would be much more helpful.  You can do this like this:

Hi Adina,

It would be much more helpful if you could post your html file as we could offer more appropriate advice, but it sounds as though you have script embedded in your html and will need to handle it with this option:

You'll need to create rules for your embedded plain text so it's only extracting the parts you need to translate.

However, I'm not 100% this is the answer because in reality I would expect to see nothing extracted if it was using the script element.  So seeing your file would be much more helpful.  You can do this like this:

4760.Secret.html.review.docx   I uploaded a word doc containing my file as I couldn't upload the original. I hope this helps too

Paul has asked repeatedly for the ORIGINAL HTML file...

Secret.zip

Hello Adina,

Thank you for the file.  It seems that the content is coming from the <noscript> element which would explain why it's being extracted since it's only the <script> element that gets ignored and can be processed with the embedded content processor.

I don't know how many of these files you have but if it's just this one then perhaps the best solution is to set the noscript element to nontranslatable in the filetype parser rules and then do the one instance that looks as though it contains translatable text by hand.  

Or leave it as it is and just lock the segments using the SDLXLIFF Toolkit so you can still use Studio to pick out the translatable parts if you like.  It's simple since the noscript components are in the document structure:

Most of the content, as you can see, is completely untranslatable and if you look at the file it looks exactly as you have explained it.  So there's nothing wrong with it, but mostly irrelevant for your purposes.  So you would do this:

If you don't know how to use the toolkit take a look at this article:

https://multifarious.filkin.com/2017/01/14/revisiting-the-toolkit/

Hope this helps somewhat?

Regards

Paul

Unknown said:

I would add that I have never seen this before with a semi-colon:

No wonder you have never seen this before as this is simply crippled invalid HTML. https://www.w3.org/TR/html/syntax.html#tag-name says clearly that "HTML elements all have names that only use alphanumeric ASCII characters".

Unknown said:

Could I ask what effect does this have on my file? Is there anything that I should be aware of in this case? Thank you

None whatsoever.  Evzen is just making the point that it's actually invalid html, and this takes us into the age old argument of should we care?  Studio generally looks to validate the correctness of files and this often leads to difficulties when the source has been prepared by someone who doesn't care about how well formed the file is because they can use it without a problem.

My personal opinion is we are not here to teach people how to prepare their source files in accordance with the various standards.  We are here to provide the people tasked with localizing the content a way to handle the files.  If they are garbage in, then we spit garbage out.  If they are perfect in, then we spit perfect out.  All we should care about is the translatable text.

I do think we need to have an optional validator as many of our customers actually do care, but we should not mandate this.