- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:22:42 +0100
- To: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
- Cc: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>, Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com>, Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAL58czrC29g6MAMotOefCNdvq+D-HdALWTwg9_HcyMwUgdhBKA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Leroy, 2012/11/7 Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> > That is a good point Felix as we want to see the output as it is as after > all these conformance tests. I haven't made any changes as of yet so would > this mean that the output stays the same apart from the changes > we discussed in Lyon??? Yes, that would be my suggestion. Of course we can continue discussing this here, but at the moment I don't see a consensus for changing this, with at least me opposing. Best, Felix > > Thanks, > Leroy > > > On 7 November 2012 10:43, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi Leroy, all, >> >> I disagree with "normalizing" the output of "pointer" or "ref" (standoff) >> attributes. With the nested attribute choices like >> >> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-implementation >> keeping the origin of the information is quite important to be able to >> see constraints. >> >> Best, >> >> Felix >> >> >> 2012/11/7 Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> >> >>> 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**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Felix Sasaki >> DFKI / W3C Fellow >> >> > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:23:10 UTC