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

RE: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:23:33 -0700
To: "'Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public'" <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.0695e39af5.assp.06956c8493.00b901cdda28$2206a420$6613ec60$@com>
Ok.

Leroy: I’ll make and commit the change later today.

that’ll save you some time.

 

From: Pablo Nieto Caride [mailto:pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Yves Savourel; 'Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public'
Subject: RE: Output for locqualityissue and locqualityrating

 

Thank you Yves, I also agree.

 

Cheers,

Pablo.

 

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 18:24:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 18:24:08 GMT