Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

Fredrik, Mauricio,

This is why we need consensus you both have a good view but the outputs are
opposing where Fredrik says remove pointer if empty and if not empty then
put in locnote or whatever needs to be put in. Mauricio you are saying put
in the path in the pointer and remove the domain or locnote etc. I would be
more for Fredrik view as the pointer information is available and can be
seen in the rules file. But again we do need consensus as a group on this
topic as I want to start producing the output soon. So what are other
peoples thoughts on this topic ????

Thanks,
Leroy

On 7 November 2012 10:01, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote:

> 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****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>
>>
>