Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

Everyone,

So the consensus I am seeing here is doing the following:

*Current:*
> */html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1] locNoteType="description" locNoteRefPointer=""
> title="Comments.html#DivByZero"*



>
> *New version:*
> */html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1] locNoteRefPointer="Comments.html#DivByZero"
> locNoteType="description" *


This means removing title or any other random name and have more consistent
output using locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef/etc....

So this brings me to locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef:


   - Yves and Fredrik are for removing the word pointer.
   - Felix is for having pointer.

I don't mind either though i would be *in favor of pointer*. Its an easy
thing to change but I will hold back producing output till tomorrow. If
no consensus is reached by tomorrow then I will go ahead for pointer and
produce the output. I will have to  have to reproduce output again probably
anyway so if people change there mind and more people are for dropping
pointer then i will drop pointer. So if people have views on this then let
me know one way or the other.

Thanks,
Leroy

On 7 November 2012 21:01, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2012/11/7 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> >> That is a good point Felix as we want to see the output as it is
>> >> as after all these conformance tests. I haven't made any changes
>> >> as of yet so would this mean that the output stays the same apart
>> >> from the changes we discussed in Lyon???
>> >
>> > Yes, that would be my suggestion. Of course we can continue discussing
>> > this here, but at the moment I don't see a consensus for changing this,
>> > with at least me opposing.
>>
>> I've read all the emails in this thread and I still have a hard time to
>> understand the changes/no-changes that people are talking about. Sorry if
>> I'm speaking on something that has been resolved already:
>>
>> For me:
>>
>> For references: Either locNote="REF:text" or locNoteRef="text" is fine.
>> The bottom line is that the fact that the data is a reference vs the actual
>> text is important and should be provided. It is part of the ITS information.
>>
>> For the pointers: I'm not sure why we need to output that information. If
>> the text of the information is right it means it was properly resolved. My
>> concern is that 'how' the information was obtain as far as if it was from a
>> native ITS attribute or some markup pointed to by a rule is not really
>> relevant for processor used in production. Carrying that information in the
>> decorated tree is a burden to the application.
>>
>
>
> I understand, but I think this burden is important. We have seen in the
> "complete overriding" discussion that carrying such information can be
> quite helpful to understand how the technology works - even 5 years after
> it has been specified.
>
>
>>
>> So I would be for something like this:
>>
>> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNote="A division by 0 was
>> going to be computed."  locNoteType="description"
>>
>> Rather than this:
>>
>> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNoteType="description"
>>     locNotePointer="A division by 0 was going to be computed."
>>
>
> My preference would be the latter. But I realize that in the ITS 1.0 test
> suite we did the former, see
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/inputdata/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1.xml
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/expected/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1-result.xml
> In the result the pointer is normalized to
> <o:locNoteText>A division by 0 was going to be computed.</o:locNoteText>
>
> So I can't back my position with any data in that sense.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -yves
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
>