Re: TargetPointer DataCategory Expected Output

Philip,

This was discuss previously in this email and the output is correct you
just need to slightly adjust your parser.

*Discussed here:*
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2012Dec/0048.html

Thanks,
Leroy

On 19 February 2013 14:30, Philip <Philip.Oduffy@ul.ie> wrote:

>  Hey Guys,
>     I'm currently trying to validate the "TargetPointer" data category. I
> think the expected output for some of the files may be wrong.
>
> *Input: targetpointer1xml.xml*
> <file xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"<http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its>>
>
>  <its:rules version="2.0">
>   <its:targetPointerRule selector="//source" targetPointer="../target"/>
>  </its:rules>
>  <entry id="one">
>   <source>Remember last folder</source>
>   <target>lastFolder</target>
>  </entry>
>  <entry id="two">
>   <source>Custom file filter:</source>
>   <target>testFile.txt</target>
>  </entry>
> </file>
>
> *My output
> */file
> /file/its:rules[1]
> /file/its:rules[1]/@version
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]/@selector
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]/@targetPointer
> /file/entry[1]
> /file/entry[1]/@id
> /file/entry[1]/source[1]    *targetPointer="lastFolder"*
> /file/entry[1]/target[1]
> /file/entry[2]
> /file/entry[2]/@id
> /file/entry[2]/source[1]    *targetPointer="testFile.txt"*
> /file/entry[2]/target[1]*
> **
> **Expected Output
> */file
> /file/its:rules[1]
> /file/its:rules[1]/@version
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]/@selector
> /file/its:rules[1]/its:targetPointerRule[1]/@targetPointer
> /file/entry[1]
> /file/entry[1]/@id
> /file/entry[1]/source[1]    *targetPointer="../target" *
> /file/entry[1]/target[1]
> /file/entry[2]
> /file/entry[2]/@id
> /file/entry[2]/source[1]    *targetPointer="../target" *
> /file/entry[2]/target[1] *
>
> *I think targetPointer should equal "lastFolder" and "testFile.txt" not
> "../target". I could be wrong though, but if anyone could shed light on the
> issue, I would be grateful.
> Thanks,
> Philip
>