- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:00:27 -0700
- To: 'Felix Sasaki' <fsasaki@w3.org>, '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>
Hi all, >> 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. I've read all the emails in this thread and I still have a hard time to understand the changes/no-changes that people are talking about. Sorry if I'm speaking on something that has been resolved already: For me: For references: Either locNote="REF:text" or locNoteRef="text" is fine. The bottom line is that the fact that the data is a reference vs the actual text is important and should be provided. It is part of the ITS information. For the pointers: I'm not sure why we need to output that information. If the text of the information is right it means it was properly resolved. My concern is that 'how' the information was obtain as far as if it was from a native ITS attribute or some markup pointed to by a rule is not really relevant for processor used in production. Carrying that information in the decorated tree is a burden to the application. So I would be for something like this: /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1] locNote="A division by 0 was going to be computed." locNoteType="description" Rather than this: /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1] locNoteType="description" locNotePointer="A division by 0 was going to be computed." Cheers, -yves
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 13:01:05 UTC