- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:15:26 +0200
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Cc: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAL58czqDiVgFg8YfpEqCnEMQ3dcXm-zTT9-tT-UCk7jZdnQUCw@mail.gmail.com>
2012/8/1 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> > Wow… That is really pushing toward new frontiers :) N*2 levels of > information into a single value is bound to break at some point: you can’t > use any of the delimiters as literal for example.**** > > ** ** > > I would think that if you need to apply several note to the same content > you would use several <span> elements. It’s not nice, but it’s more common > than doing that kind of cramming.**** > > ** ** > > But overall it seems we are really trying to put inline something that is > just not working well inline. > I agree, and my proposal just came because the inline requirement seemed to be mandatory. But maybe we can drop it, or use the "span" solution, ... Phil? Felix > **** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > -ys**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Arle Lommel [mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:50 PM > *To:* Phil Ritchie > > *Cc:* Multilingual Web LT Public List > *Subject:* Re: Quality markup sample**** > > ** ** > > Hi Phil,**** > > ** ** > > After discussing with Felix, I think we have a solution to the issue of > multiple markup items: We would have an internal syntax to the attribute > values using a vertical bar (|) as a delimiter, so you could see markup > like this:**** > > ** ** > > <p**** > > its-qualitytype="markup;okapi:MISSING_TAG_IN_TARGET| > terminology;okapi:TERMINOLOGY"**** > > its-qualitycomment="An <em> tag is missing in the target|the text > should refer to a USB drive rather than pen drive">**** > > The only thing you need is a pen drive**** > > </p>**** > > ** ** > > In this case the ; in qualityType would delimit between the high-level > category and the application-specific one and the | between instances of > values, so the blue values are a pair, and the red ones another. The > requirement then (which I don't think can be enforced by a schema) is that > if you have bar-delimited bits in one qualityType, you need an equal number > in qualityComment (and vice versa), even if they are empty. For example, > the following would be perfectly acceptable**** > > ** ** > > <p**** > > its-qualitytype="markup;okapi:MISSING_TAG_IN_TARGET| > terminology;okapi:TERMINOLOGY"**** > > its-qualitycomment="|the text should refer to a USB drive rather than pen > drive">**** > > The only thing you need is a pen drive**** > > </p>**** > > ** ** > > I.e., the qualityComment value corresponding to the red portion is empty > and the bar marks the end of the empty portion.**** > > ** ** > > I know this is cramming some structure into the values of these attributes > that complicates them, but given the overriding and inheritance rules of > ITS, this seems to be the best solution.**** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > ** ** > > Arle**** > > ** ** > > On Jul 31, 2012, at 20:44 , Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie> wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Thanks for this Arle. Good catch on the multiple errors. I'm not familiar > with how additive markup is achieved. Sounds like you have to end up with > some sort of external file that has multiple pointers to the same element? > > Phil**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 15:15:58 UTC