Include the customer component in the language handover
A page can pass a translation review while one of its visible components remains in the original language. Before asking a reviewer to translate it again, establish whether that component's text was ever included in the material they received.
This fictional example concerns a Singapore service business preparing a Mandarin enquiry journey alongside its English page. The business has chosen the audience and commissioned the language review. The investigation follows a missing part of the source export, not a claim that a general page scanner can discover every string or approve its meaning.
Compare the visible journey with the supplied manifest
The page has an introductory instruction and an equipment-enquiry component. The component contains two labels and a short hint. In the reviewed Mandarin preview, the introduction has changed but the component still shows “Equipment reference,” “Describe the fault” and “Include the equipment reference if it is available.”
The reviewer opens the supplied translation manifest. It contains only page.introduction. None of the component's three resource identifiers appears. The translated introduction is not defective; the handover omitted other public wording the reader needs.
Inspection of the fictional implementation finds an open shadow root attached to the equipment-enquiry element. The component's labels are inside that tree. The old exporter uses a document-level query for elements carrying data-message-id, then collects the returned text. It finds the introduction in the page's light tree but does not reach the component's separate shadow tree.
The DOM Standard distinguishes a shadow tree from its host's light tree. A document-level selector is not a promise to traverse every hosted component. In this example, the source and the export result establish the omission; a visual screenshot alone would not explain why it happened.
Identify the supported content contract
The maintainer checks the component's actual public resource interface. In the fictional arrangement, it provides a documented export of the three customer-facing messages and accepts a reviewed resource bundle for the chosen language. Their identifiers are stable:
| Resource identifier | English source purpose | Treatment in the corrected manifest |
|---|---|---|
page.introduction |
Introduce the enquiry | Retain the existing page entry |
enquiry.equipmentLabel |
Identify the equipment reference field | Add the component's public label |
enquiry.faultLabel |
Ask for the customer's fault description | Add the component's public label |
enquiry.referenceHint |
Explain that an available reference is useful | Add the complete component hint |
These identifiers belong to this component's inspected contract. They are not names inferred from the first words of the English labels. Moving or rewriting a sentence should not break the link between the approved content and the place that uses it.
The correction uses that supported public export rather than indiscriminately collecting every string visible to a developer. An internal staff component and private diagnostic messages are outside this language commission. Technical access to a string does not establish permission or a reason to send it to a reviewer.
Give the reviewer the action, not only the words
The handover now includes each source message, its identifier, the control it accompanies and the intended customer action. The reference is helpful when available; the business has not made it a prerequisite for every enquiry. The fault description asks for what the customer has observed, without inviting them to make a technical diagnosis.
The fictional language review supplies the following Mandarin messages for the exercise:
| Message | Reviewed example wording |
|---|---|
| Equipment reference | 设备编号 |
| Describe the fault | 故障说明 |
| Include the equipment reference if it is available. | 如有设备编号，请一并提供。 |
A real project needs its own qualified review of terminology and meaning. The technical task is to preserve the accepted messages and show them in context, not to infer translation quality from a successful export.
The introduction and component are reviewed together. A page that says a reference is optional while a component demands it would still fail the customer task, even if every message had a translation.
Apply the bundle and read the complete result back
In the fictional private exercise, the corrected manifest contains all four approved entries. The maintainer supplies the reviewed component bundle through its supported interface and retains the corresponding English bundle.
The Mandarin page now shows the translated introduction, both component labels and the complete reference hint. The resource identifiers still correspond to the same fields. A fictional equipment value EQ-28 and the customer's entered description remain unchanged when the language presentation is reviewed; translation of labels does not rewrite submitted business data.
The reviewer follows the component in its actual context, including the relationship between the label and field. The acceptance record identifies the page revision, component revision, approved bundle and the four observed message locations. It does not stop at a manifest row count.
The English page continues to show its own approved wording. The internal staff component retains its original content and is absent from the public translation export. A separate ordinary page message still appears once in the manifest, rather than being duplicated by the added component export.
Treat unavailable component content as an unresolved dependency
A separate control component uses a closed shadow root and exposes no supported language-resource interface in the inspected arrangement. A standard external shadowRoot lookup does not expose that root. The export records the limitation and asks the component owner for a supported option; it does not claim that a deeper generic crawl has completed the commission.
Nor does an open root establish complete content coverage by itself. A component may show additional errors or states only during interaction. The approved inventory must identify which states belong in the customer journey, and the review must include their actual wording when they are in scope.
The completed correction therefore has a specific result: the known public enquiry component participates in the language handover through its supported resource contract. Unavailable components and unreviewed states remain explicit work, not silently counted as translated.
Keep the manifest, resource ownership and in-context acceptance examples with the editing instructions. Customer website development can organise that wider language journey, while application recovery can inspect a component whose content path is unclear.