W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org > December 2012

RE: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating

From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:20:22 +0000
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: "'Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public'" <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAD6CA15E.EF297AF7-ON80257AD4.005F3656-80257AD4.005F3FC7@vistatec.ie>
Fine with me.

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     "'Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public'" 
<public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>, 
Date:   14/12/2012 17:16
Subject:        RE: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating



If all LQI implementers agree with Leroy’s email here (I do):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2012Dec/0105.html

 
then I can regenerate the LQI outputs with locQualityissueEnabled on all 
LQI nodes.
I have the whole day in front of me, unlike you :)
 
-ys
 
From: Leroy Finn [mailto:finnle@tcd.ie] 
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Phil Ritchie
Cc: Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public
Subject: Re: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating
 
Also on those files with errors we are in the process of updating them but 
this issue is holding us back in updating them (this point was raised by 
Yves):
 
I saw that you updated locqualityissue3xmloutput.txt
https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/commit/f0d00c75f54fce96653ed7b00f49890e7c46ef16


Thanks for that.
Could we decide about when to represent locQualityIssueEnabled soon?
See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2012Dec/0069.html


- a) always
- b) only when the value is different from the default
Currently we output it when locQualityIssueEnabled is defined. But not all 
implementations can do this as it has a default value, so when a decorated 
node has a 'yes' it can be either from the default or from a declaration.
I think we have been outputting defaults in other data categories, so a) 
is probably the logical way to go. Note that either a) or b) means 
changing a few output files.
cheers,
-yves
 
Have a nice weekend,
Leroy 
 
On 14 December 2012 16:58, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote:
Hey Phil,
 
The its:param files are correct i checked them and so has Yves. There are 
errors in lqi 3 and 4 xml and html 1 which will be corrected soon. I 
didn't fix them today as I was busy with domain, target pointer and ruby. 
Also in the attachment you sent LQI outputs for both LQI and LQR. When you 
can could be please forward on the LQR results.
 
Thanks,
Leroy 
 
On 14 December 2012 16:15, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie> wrote:
Guys 

Attached all of our output for xml/html for locqualityissue/rating using 
files from github as of yesterday evening. 

The only differences are for parameterized rules and where I believe there 
are some bugs in the test suite output. 



Phil.

************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.
www.vistatec.com
************************************************************
 
 


************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 17:20:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 17:20:53 GMT