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

Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:26:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czop95JgZkH+eyyduJOjuGEmkGbMBs=ZEz2kSaK5TFnk=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi Dave, all,

apologies, I'm behind things. I thought we'd agreed at the f2f meeting that
there is just an URI pointing to tool information, nothing else. See
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html

[

Felix: You could have a seperate script element for each standoff item.

 pitty Yves cannot be on the phone. He has raised concerns: anything
possible, tool with element it in, or define a schema. There is a drawback
that you restrict people to xml processing, what about the case of RDF or
audio. Does everyone who needs the element need XML?
...

<fsasaki> "Disambiguation|file:///tools.xml#T2" > "Disambiguation|
http://enrycher.com/v1.2/language-en"

Felix: Paste proposal into chat, from Yves, this URI itself is just a URI,
no further information, self-contained in the URL. This tool is X, in Lang
Y, in the URL where each tool can create the tool itself. But in a large
document this is the list of annotation with URI = tool1, URI = tool2. Dont
restrict the URI being retrieved and XML removes this restriction.

Dave Lewis: Naoto has interest in this.

 any other comments else I'll take this on board, update text, get
feedback from Tadej and Yves. Try to update and send off today (2nd Nov).
Tadej: I like felix's suggestion on URI encoding. All people will not be
able to encode in a common format but good to provide best-practices.
]

So why do we discuss the toolinfo element and id resolution in "script" at
all?

Sorry for the additional loop,

Felix

2012/11/7 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi Jirka,
> Thanks for that.
>
> So to check, does the solution suggested by Yves, i.e. reflecting the
> toolInfo id in the script id,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2012Nov/0019.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0019.html>
> and only having one toolInfo element per script as discussed in.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2012Nov/0038.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0038.html>
> solve this problem?
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
> On 05/11/2012 15:59, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>
>> On 2.11.2012 14:29, Dave Lewis wrote:
>>
>>  For HTML this works when the tool info is external to the file. However,
>>> it doesn't work when the tool information is held with the file. Here we
>>> could use the XML in htm:script element solution that we use for mark-up
>>> in some of the data categories (e.g. Quality Issue). In this case we
>>> would need to specify in the spec the element type the IRI refers to.
>>>
>>> So we would need the following wording:
>>> "Where the IRI in not used in a its:toolRefs attribute in an XML
>>> document or not for pointing to an external resource in a its-tool-refs
>>> attributed in a HTML document, then it MUST refer to a its:toolInfo
>>> element."
>>>
>> This is not technically possible. In HTML its:toolInfo inside <script>
>> element and is not exposed as a markup, it's just plain text inside
>> <script> which doesn't have ID and can't be directly addressed.
>>
>>                         Jirka
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:27:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:03 UTC