RE: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

I agree with Fredrik, the simpler the better.

 

I also think that maybe we should coordinate to commit changes to the files.

 

By the way Leroy my github user is pnietoca.

 

Cheers,

__________________________________

Pablo Nieto Caride

Dpto. Técnico/I+D+i

Linguaserve Internacionalización de Servicios, S.A.

Tel.: +34 91 761 64 60 ext. 0422
Fax: +34 91 542 89 28 

E-mail:  <mailto:pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com> pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com

www.linguaserve.com <http://www.linguaserve.com/> 

 

«En cumplimiento con lo previsto con los artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley
34/2002, de 11 de julio, de Servicios de la Sociedad de Información y
Comercio Electrónico, le informamos que procederemos al archivo y
tratamiento de sus datos exclusivamente con fines de promoción de los
productos y servicios ofrecidos por LINGUASERVE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE
SERVICIOS, S.A. En caso de que Vdes. no deseen que procedamos al archivo y
tratamiento de los datos proporcionados, o no deseen recibir comunicaciones
comerciales sobre los productos y servicios ofrecidos, comuníquenoslo a
clients@linguaserve.com, y su petición será inmediatamente cumplida.»

 

"According to the provisions set forth in articles 21 and 22 of Law 34/2002
of July 11 regarding Information Society and eCommerce Services, we will
store and use your personal data with the sole purpose of marketing the
products and services offered by LINGUASERVE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE
SERVICIOS, S.A. If you do not wish your personal data to be stored and
handled, or you do not wish to receive further information regarding
products and services offered by our company, please e-mail us to
clients@linguaserve.com. Your request will be processed immediately.”

__________________________________

De: Fredrik Liden [mailto:fliden@enlaso.com] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de noviembre de 2012 8:26
Para: Leroy Finn; Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public
Asunto: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

 

Hi Leroy,

 

We talked a bit about the test output for pointers last Friday. Sorry about
the delay sending the example to the list.

 

The examples from the test suite:

 

locnote2htmloutput.txt

/html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNoteType="description"
locNotePointer="A division by 0 was going to be computed."

 

In the cases of pointers maybe we can just resolve the pointer and show the
value as plain locNote. We don’t care to much that it’s from a pointer, just
that the value is correct.

 

/html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNote="A division by 0 was
going to be computed."  locNoteType="description"

 

 

Locnote4htmloutput.txt

/html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       locNoteType="description"
locNoteRefPointer=""                title="Comments.html#FileNotFound"

 

locnote4xmloutput.txt

/dataFile/body[1]/string[1]path=/data[1]
locNoteType="description"         locNoteRefPointer=""
noteFile="Comments.html#FileNotFound"

 

[Fyi, In the cases of refPointers the html and xml examples shows different
format title vs. noteFile]

 

Perhaps we can follow the same logic of the pointers in the example above
and resolve them and not show the title/noteFile so instead something
simpler like:

 

/html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       locNoteRef="Comments.html#FileNotFound"
locNoteType="description"

and

/dataFile/body[1]/string[1]/data[1]
locNoteRef="Comments.html#FileNotFound" locNoteType="description" 

 

or

 

/html/body[1]/p[1]/span[1]       locNote="REF:Comments.html#FileNotFound"
locNoteType="description"

and

/dataFile/body[1]/string[1]/data[1]
locNote="REF:Comments.html#FileNotFound"
locNoteType="description" 

 

 

On a side note, does it make sense for implementers to update the testresult
files on GitHub at will or do you prefer us to wait until after Dec 4th.
Just as a random example \locale1htmloutput.txt I think it’s missing the
following two lines (unless we’re ignoring meta):

 

/html/head[1]/meta[1]                

/html/head[1]/meta[1]/@charset

 

I’m asking because I know you’re working on the files so I don’t want to
cause any inconvenience by introducing unexpected changes if you’re in the
middle of something. Perhaps you prefer us to report any findings on a file
per file basis to approve the change first? 

 

Thanks,

Fredrik