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

Re: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating

From: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:21:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMYWBwuD0DG+ci=wmegM5P1fXPMC6X+-g1ynR7Nj_1YQcdsAkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
Hey Phil,

What i mean is you only sent me LQI output and didn't send me any LQR stuff
instead in the LQR folder is only more LQI ouput. I think you should have
enough done for the M2 milestone just send me on the LQR output and you
should be set for this milestone.

Leroy


On 14 December 2012 17:16, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

> 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
> ****************************************************************
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 17:21:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 17:21:45 GMT