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

RE: ACTION-292 - check global rules for LQI

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:33:55 -0700
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.0664a2f7ea.assp.06647efd57.005f01cdc1c5$0e3e62a0$2abb27e0$@com>
Good point Felix.
I was too eager to eliminate things that I forgot about those :(

I suppose yes, there is a use case for translatable attributes, especially for HTML5.

So then we would "just" eliminate all the pointer attributes (except locQualityIssuesRefPointer ) in the global rule.

And we would change the two global examples to illustrate a) the attribute case, and b) the locQualityIssuesRefPointer.
I can do that if we go for this simplification.

cheers,
-yves





From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:25 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-292 - check global rules for LQI

Hi Yves, all,

just a clarification question: do you see a use case to add quality issue information to attributes? That was an argument for the global rules before. If not that's fine, just asking. If the answer is yes, we'd need an example to demonstrate that.

Best,

Felix
2012/11/13 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Hi all,

I had the action item to check the examples for global notation for Localization Quality issue:


-- Example http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/xml/EX-locQualityIssue-global-1.xml

I think this is not the best way to annotate a content, especially since there is the possibility to use standoff markup.
The example is technically valid, but IMO does not show a best practice.


-- Example: http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/xml/EX-locQualityIssue-global-2.xml

This eemonstrates the use of pointers. The example is technically fine.
However, except for locQualityIssuesRefPointer (not illustrated here), I doubt there are many formats that would have the exact same semantics for the different localization quality issue information.
Consequently, I'm not sure this notation will be used often.


-- Example : http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/html5/EX-locQualityIssue-html5-global.html
and http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/html5/EX-locQualityIssueRule-html5-global.xml

Like for the first example, I think with the availability of the standoff markup there is not real need to use a global rule to annotate a content, even in HTML5. This notation could be replaced by a its-loc-quality-issues-ref pointing to a standoff element.


=== Conclusion:

The Localization Quality issue data category should have a global rule.
But that rule could be reduced to something a lot simpler:

- A required selector attribute. It contains an absolute selector which selects the nodes to which this rule applies.
- A required locQualityIssuesRefPointer attribute. It contains a relative selector pointing to a node with a value that is an IRI pointing to the locQualityIssues element containing the list of issues related to the selected content.


cheers,
-yves





-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 17:34:48 UTC

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