- From: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:01:38 +0000
- To: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>
- Cc: Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com>, Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMYWBwtJ-YxM3USVj-LN7Rf60TfR43jGV7i_HjQR5OfMJPyfYg@mail.gmail.com>
Fredrik, PS. Also don't post output to the github just yet until December as the input files haven't been reviewed by Jirka or the group yet and Pablo I will add you to the github today. Thanks, Leroy On 7 November 2012 09:59, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote: > Fredrik, > > I agree with that this will make thing simpler but we need consensus on > this from the group. This will cause some major changes in the update so if > people agree I will post results like discussed in your e-mail. Also as i > have discussed in a previous email i haven't re-run output in a while and > meta has only been added recently to most files so except it to appear in > future output. I am in the middle of updating the test suite parser at the > moment adding in its:param parsing, removing of its: and adding of > alphabetic ordering as discussed in the meeting. I will start working on > the pointer output but it would be nice to hear some feedback on it from > others in the group as well?????? > > Thanks, > Leroy > > > On 7 November 2012 08:55, Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>wrote: > >> 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: **pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com*** >> >> *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**** >> >> ** ** >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 10:02:05 UTC