- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:17:25 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable given this positive development http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0061.html So the actions needed would be 1) clarification of "uncategorized" 2) having an example that demonstrates the usage in the MT scenario - not necessarily in the spec, but as part of best practices and to see the annotation the qt launchpad project would produce 3) update http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Type http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3? With regards to Phil's mail at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0010.html I see this as a different topic, but would prefer not to add values or attributes at this time, like with issue-60. Phil, if you still need this please create a seperate comment. Best, Felix Am 11.12.12 20:57, schrieb Jörg Schütz: > That's a very good solution to avoid a possible type value tsunami and > additional LC (if this is really the case with such an addition). > > By the way, your "1862" example is a candidate for the > "mistranslation" type. > > Cheers -- Jörg > > On Dec 11, 2012 at 18:31 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote: >> The other alternative is that we expand the semantics of "uncategorized" >> slightly to allow for a more naturalistic interpretation such that it >> doesn't mean "we haven't categorized it" to "we haven't or can't >> categorize it". That would be satisfactory as well, I think, and less of >> a change. >> >> -Arle >> >> >> >> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:27 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de >> <mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de>> wrote: >> >>> Jörg is correct here that nothing has this already. This is really >>> looking forward to QT Launchpad work. If saying "nobody has >>> implemented this so far" disqualifies it, then we would be forced to >>> use "uncategorized" and add some custom markup. That wouldn't be the >>> end of the world for us, but it would be nice to have. >>> >>> However, see my last mail about how I see this as different. >>> >>> (I can say, up front, that if this isn't accepted I won't hold >>> anything up over it, so the moment this causes real problems, we can >>> drop it.) >>> >>> -Arle >>> >>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:15 , Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de >>> <mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Felix, >>>> >>>> Since an additional value doesn't actually harm the type list which >>>> certainly can be seen as open ended (but still backward compatible), >>>> the need for a subsequent LC is questionable. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, the proposed quality type value "unintelligible" for >>>> the described output case might be controversial because it does not >>>> indicate/reflect a quality consideration as the other types in the >>>> list do. The QT Launchpad project should therefore consider to use >>>> "uncategorized" because this value might indicate the "trashy" >>>> quality. >>>> >>>> And TMK, I'm not aware of any language proofing technology that uses >>>> "unintelligible" has a quality value. >>>> >>>> Cheers -- Jörg >
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:17:53 UTC