Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

I don't agree on the locnotref point I think they should stay locnoteref as
otherwise changing the output of locnoteref.

*(CURRENTLY)*

/dataFile/body[1]/string[1]/data[1]        *
> locNoteRef="Comments.html#FileNotFound"* locNoteType="description"  * *
>
> or
>
> /html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       *locNote="REF:Comments.html#FileNotFound"
> *               locNoteType="description"


Leroy


On 7 November 2012 10:14, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote:

> Fredrik, Mauricio,
>
> This is why we need consensus you both have a good view but the outputs
> are opposing where Fredrik says remove pointer if empty and if not empty
> then put in locnote or whatever needs to be put in. Mauricio you are saying
> put in the path in the pointer and remove the domain or locnote etc. I
> would be more for Fredrik view as the pointer information is available and
> can be seen in the rules file. But again we do need consensus as a group on
> this topic as I want to start producing the output soon. So what are other
> peoples thoughts on this topic ????
>
> Thanks,
> Leroy
>
>
> On 7 November 2012 10:01, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>> Fredrik,
>>
>> PS. Also don't post output to the github just yet until December as the
>> input files haven't been reviewed by Jirka or the group yet and Pablo  I
>> will add you to the github today.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leroy
>>
>>
>> On 7 November 2012 09:59, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> Fredrik,
>>>
>>> I agree with that this will make thing simpler but we need consensus on
>>> this from the group. This will cause some major changes in the update so if
>>> people agree I will post results like discussed in your e-mail. Also as i
>>> have discussed in a previous email i haven't re-run output in a while and
>>> meta has only been added recently to most files so except it to appear in
>>> future output. I am in the middle of updating the test suite parser at the
>>> moment adding in its:param parsing, removing of its: and adding of
>>> alphabetic ordering as discussed in the meeting. I will start working on
>>> the pointer output but it would be nice to hear some feedback on it from
>>> others in the group as well??????
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Leroy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 November 2012 08:55, Pablo Nieto Caride <
>>> pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Fredrik, the simpler the better.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I also think that maybe we should coordinate to commit changes to the
>>>> files.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> By the way Leroy my github user is pnietoca.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,****
>>>>
>>>> *__________________________________*
>>>>
>>>> *Pablo Nieto Caride*
>>>>
>>>> *Dpto. Técnico/I+D+i*
>>>>
>>>> *Linguaserve Internacionalización de Servicios, S.A.*
>>>>
>>>> *Tel.: +34 91 761 64 60 ext. 0422
>>>> Fax: +34 91 542 89 28 *
>>>>
>>>> *E-mail: **pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com***
>>>>
>>>> *www.linguaserve.com*
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> *«En cumplimiento con lo previsto con los artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley
>>>> 34/2002, de 11 de julio, de Servicios de la Sociedad de Información y
>>>> Comercio Electrónico, le informamos que procederemos al archivo y
>>>> tratamiento de sus datos exclusivamente con fines de promoción de los
>>>> productos y servicios ofrecidos por LINGUASERVE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE
>>>> SERVICIOS, S.A. En caso de que Vdes. no deseen que procedamos al archivo y
>>>> tratamiento de los datos proporcionados, o no deseen recibir comunicaciones
>>>> comerciales sobre los productos y servicios ofrecidos, comuníquenoslo a
>>>> clients@linguaserve.com, y su petición será inmediatamente cumplida.»*
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> *"According to the provisions set forth in articles 21 and 22 of Law
>>>> 34/2002 of July 11 regarding Information Society and eCommerce Services, we
>>>> will store and use your personal data with the sole purpose of marketing
>>>> the products and services offered by LINGUASERVE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE
>>>> SERVICIOS, S.A. If you do not wish your personal data to be stored and
>>>> handled, or you do not wish to receive further information regarding
>>>> products and services offered by our company, please e-mail us to
>>>> clients@linguaserve.com. Your request will be processed immediately.”*
>>>>
>>>> *__________________________________*****
>>>>
>>>> *De:* Fredrik Liden [mailto:fliden@enlaso.com]
>>>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 07 de noviembre de 2012 8:26
>>>> *Para:* Leroy Finn; Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public
>>>> *Asunto:* Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Hi Leroy,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> We talked a bit about the test output for pointers last Friday. Sorry
>>>> about the delay sending the example to the list.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> The examples from the test suite:****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *locnote2htmloutput.txt*
>>>>
>>>> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]
>>>> locNoteType="description"         *locNotePointer="A division by 0 was
>>>> going to be computed."*
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> In the cases of pointers maybe we can just resolve the pointer and show
>>>> the value as plain locNote. We don’t care to much that it’s from a pointer,
>>>> just that the value is correct.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           *locNote="A division by 0
>>>> was going to be computed."*  locNoteType="description"****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *Locnote4htmloutput.txt*
>>>>
>>>> /html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       locNoteType="description"         *locNoteRefPointer=""
>>>> title="Comments.html#FileNotFound"*
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *locnote4xmloutput.txt*
>>>>
>>>> /dataFile/body[1]/string[1]path=/data[1]
>>>> locNoteType="description"         *locNoteRefPointer=""
>>>> noteFile="Comments.html#FileNotFound"*****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> [Fyi, In the cases of refPointers the html and xml examples shows
>>>> different format title vs. noteFile]****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we can follow the same logic of the pointers in the example
>>>> above and resolve them and not show the title/noteFile so instead something
>>>> simpler like:****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> /html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       *
>>>> locNoteRef="Comments.html#FileNotFound"*
>>>> locNoteType="description"****
>>>>
>>>> and****
>>>>
>>>> /dataFile/body[1]/string[1]/data[1]        *
>>>> locNoteRef="Comments.html#FileNotFound"* locNoteType="description" ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> or****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> /html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       *
>>>> locNote="REF:Comments.html#FileNotFound"*
>>>> locNoteType="description"****
>>>>
>>>> and****
>>>>
>>>> /dataFile/body[1]/string[1]/data[1]        *
>>>> locNote="REF:Comments.html#FileNotFound"*
>>>> locNoteType="description" ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> On a side note, does it make sense for implementers to update the
>>>> testresult files on GitHub at will or do you prefer us to wait until after
>>>> Dec 4th. Just as a random example *\locale1htmloutput.txt *I think
>>>> it’s missing the following two lines (unless we’re ignoring meta):****
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> /html/head[1]/meta[1]                ****
>>>>
>>>> /html/head[1]/meta[1]/@charset****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I’m asking because I know you’re working on the files so I don’t want
>>>> to cause any inconvenience by introducing unexpected changes if you’re in
>>>> the middle of something. Perhaps you prefer us to report any findings on a
>>>> file per file basis to approve the change first? ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,****
>>>>
>>>> Fredrik****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>