- From: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:02:18 +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: <CAMYWBwuXh51frv4CU3nQ70OLFJpe7AjqNhhY3VddpaL28ee1Ww@mail.gmail.com>
I haven't started on localisation quality parsing yet but i would go with the pattern of alphabetical ordering. What do others think? Leroy On 12 November 2012 10:01, Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie> wrote: > *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 10:02:46 UTC