issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

Hi Arle,

this is now issue-60 on tracker.

As discussed previously at DFKI, adding a new value could be interpreted 
as a normative, that is substantive change. This would mean at least 3 
weeks of delay for another last call period. Hence we need to be careful 
in handling this proposal and discussing it in the group.

IIRC, Jirka is currently working on preparing the HTML5+ITS schema and 
getting it into the W3C validator. This would also mean that he'd need 
to change

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/schemas/its20-types.rng
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/schemas/its20-types.rnc

which provide the list of types, currently

its-locQualityIssueType.type = "terminology" | "mistranslation" |
   "omission" | "untranslated" | "addition" | "duplication" |
   "inconsistency" | "grammar" | "legal" | "register" |
   "locale-specific-content" | "locale-violation" | "style" |
   "characters" | "misspelling" | "typographical" | "formatting" |
   "inconsistent-entities" | "numbers" | "markup" | "pattern-problem" |
   "whitespace" | "internationalization" | "length" | "uncategorized" |
   "other"

So I'd encourage the group to think the severity of this change through 
and discuss it during next week's call.

Also, a question: the other types where based on what existing tools or 
standards initiatives produce. From the specification we link to an 
information mapping of categories to tools

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings
http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html

Is there some planned or existing tools support for this new value? What 
do other implementors think about the proposal?

Best,

Felix

Am 11.12.12 13:00, schrieb Arle Lommel:
> The following feedback is from the QT Launchpad project on Appendix C 
> (Values for the Localization Quality Issue Type).
>
> The values in this appendix assume that the nature of all issues can 
> be identified (either in fact or in principle), even those classified 
> as “other” (which means simply that they are /not/ of a type 
> identified in the list).
>
> However, in some cases errors may be so extreme that it is /not/ 
> diagnostically possible to identify a type. For example, if one is 
> asked to translate the sentence
>
>     /The sine–Gordon equation is a nonlinear hyperbolic partial
>     differential equation in 1 + 1 dimensions involving the d'Alembert
>     operator and the sine of the unknown function./
>
>
> into Chinese and the results come out as
>
>     /Рима, ويكيبGordonيدياնթա، مdimeequasن від 8 الموسوعة الحرة意大
>     փասამაშშտե利波代північ/
>
> it may in fact be impossible to determine what the error type is 
> because the entire result is garbled beyond intelligibility.
>
> As a result, we would recommend the addition of another issue type to 
> the specification: *unintelligible*
> *
> *
> The information for the table would be as follows:
>
>     *Value*
>
>         unintelligible
>
>
>     *Description*
>
>         The content is unintelligible (e.g., garbled) in a fashion
>         that prevents assignment of a more specific issue type.
>
>     *Example*
>
>         A sentence is supposed to be a Chinese translation of an
>         English source, but appears as “Рима, ويكيبGordonيدياնթա،
>         مdimeequasن від 8 الموسوعة الحرة意大փասამაშშտե利波代північ”.
>         Because the text is non-sense in many scripts, the exact
>         nature and cause of the underlying issue cannot be determined.
>
>
>     *Scope*
>
>         S or T
>
>
>     *Notes*
>
>         This value is to be used as a fall-back only in cases where a
>         more specific issue type (including /other/) cannot be identified.
>
>
> Because this is a fall-back issue, it should be the last one in the 
> table (so that the rule about precedence in the table will not result 
> in its inappropriate selection). Note that /uncategorized/ and 
> /other/, both of which may be conceived of as fallbacks, take 
> precedence over this category.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arle Lommel