Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

I previously asked for clarification between "...Ref" and "...RefPointer" 
so I would vote for keeping "Pointer".

Phil.





From:   Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
To:     Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, 
Cc:     Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, Pablo Nieto Caride 
<pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>, Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com>, 
Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
Date:   08/11/2012 12:52
Subject:        Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers



Everyone,

So the consensus I am seeing here is doing the following:

Current:
/html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1] locNoteType="description" locNoteRefPointer="" 
title="Comments.html#DivByZero"
 

New version:
/html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1] locNoteRefPointer="Comments.html#DivByZero" 
locNoteType="description" 

This means removing title or any other random name and have more 
consistent output using locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef/etc.... 

So this brings me to locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef:

Yves and Fredrik are for removing the word pointer.
Felix is for having pointer. 
I don't mind either though i would be in favor of pointer. Its an easy 
thing to change but I will hold back producing output till tomorrow. If 
no consensus is reached by tomorrow then I will go ahead for pointer and 
produce the output. I will have to  have to reproduce output again 
probably anyway so if people change there mind and more people are for 
dropping pointer then i will drop pointer. So if people have views on this 
then let me know one way or the other.

Thanks,
Leroy

On 7 November 2012 21:01, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:


2012/11/7 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
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.


I understand, but I think this burden is important. We have seen in the 
"complete overriding" discussion that carrying such information can be 
quite helpful to understand how the technology works - even 5 years after 
it has been specified. 
 

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."

My preference would be the latter. But I realize that in the ITS 1.0 test 
suite we did the former, see
http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/inputdata/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1.xml

http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/expected/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1-result.xml

In the result the pointer is normalized to
<o:locNoteText>A division by 0 was going to be computed.</o:locNoteText>

So I can't back my position with any data in that sense.

Best,

Felix
 


Cheers,
-yves





-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow



************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************