- From: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:01:53 +0000
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com>, Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public <public-multilingualweb-lt-tests@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMYWBwu=mM6h2jiqU+51hBXdvrJW3K7tgPvvt1uvBBkaw2HD0w@mail.gmail.com>
I haven't start on localisation quality parsing yet but i would go with the pattern of alphabetical ordering. What do others think? Leroy On 10 November 2012 05:03, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > +1. Would it make sense to say in the test suite description that the > elements inside standoff markup are ordered alphabetically? > > - Felix > > > 2012/11/9 Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com> > >> I think testoutput for standoff markup is undefined, especially for >> multiple entries applied to the same target.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In case Leroy needs some feedback maybe you can think about how to best >> represent the test output of this test file, Example 84:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> <?xml version="1.0"?>**** >> >> <xliff version="1.2" xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.2"**** >> >> xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" its:version="2.0">**** >> >> <file original="example.doc" source-language="en" datatype="plaintext"> >> **** >> >> <body>**** >> >> <trans-unit id="1">**** >> >> <source xml:lang="en">This is the content</source>**** >> >> <target xml:lang="fr"><mrk mtype="x-itslq"**** >> >> its:locQualityIssuesRef="#lq1">c'es</mrk> le contenu</target> >> **** >> >> <its:locQualityIssues xml:id="lq1">**** >> >> <its:locQualityIssue locQualityIssueType="misspelling"**** >> >> locQualityIssueComment="'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'"* >> *** >> >> locQualityIssueSeverity="50"/>**** >> >> <its:locQualityIssue locQualityIssueType="typographical"**** >> >> locQualityIssueComment="Sentence without capitalization"**** >> >> locQualityIssueSeverity="30"/>**** >> >> </its:locQualityIssues>**** >> >> </trans-unit>**** >> >> </body>**** >> >> </file>**** >> >> </xliff>**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In the common cases we to just display the IRI of the hrefs such as >> locNoteHrefPointer. But in the case of standoff we probably want o resolve >> the values to validate the result. Here’s basic example, putting the >> numbers in front so we can still sort it. It’s not that pretty though.*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> /xliff/file[1]/body[1]/trans-unit[1]/target[1]/mrk >> locQualityIssuesRef="#lq1"(?) >> [1]locQualityIssueType="misspelling" [1]locQualityIssueComment="'c'es' >> is unknown. Could be 'c'est'" >> [1]locQualityIssueSeverity="50" >> [2]locQualityIssueType="typographical" >> [2]locQualityIssueComment="Sentence without capitalization" >> [2]locQualityIssueSeverity="30"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Fredrik**** >> >> ** ** >> > > > > -- > Felix Sasaki > DFKI / W3C Fellow > >
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 10:02:25 UTC