- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:51:32 +0200
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Cc: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAL58czqQmxdphqz6JFcb6q-xkXyt9r+=2d+xd48ZVf2OSZinBg@mail.gmail.com>
2012/8/6 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> > Hi Felix, Arle, all, > > A few notes on your example for the languageTool entry: > > > -- 1) its-translation-quality-code value > > I'm not sure we should allow a content that is everything and anything > like in the example. > +1. > To me its-translation-quality-code is a for a code that is basically a > sub-type, a label that allow a finer granularity of classification of the > top-level value. > This way, even if they do not know what the actual value means, tool can > make a limited use of the data, like present it to the user. > > If we allow anything in the attribute, and use it like a bag of > tool-specific data it loses all meaning. It seems to me that tool-specific > data which cannot be mapped to an ITS attribute should be coded by the tool > using "data-" in HTML5 and a different namespace in XML. > > > -- 2) Referenced information vs. inline information > > The LanguageTool element <error> is a good example of why it is important > to resolve our on-going discussion about how to represent the quality > information other than inline. > > Arle used <span> to illustrate his mapping, but if LanguageTool was using > ITS directly it couldn't do it in an XML return file the way it works > today. Currently our attributes' scope is the content of the element in > which the attributes are define. In <error> it is not the case. It's more > like the XLIFF 2.0 case were we must use some non-inline representation > that refers to the marked up content. > > We need to have either a set of pointers attributes (a lot of added > complication), or allow the scope of the attributes be interpreted either > as inline or pertaining to the content that refer to the holding element > where the attributes are located (or its parent to allow multiple entries > for the same span of content). > > Maybe it is as simple as to provide the official holder elements like this: > > <its:locQualityNote id='qa123'> > <its:entry > locQualityType"typographic" > locQualityCode="languageTool:UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START" > locQualityComment="This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter" > /> > </its:locQualityNote> > > And say that within such construct the attribute don't have an inline > scope but pertains to the content pointing to that construct. > > In HTML5 we would use the attribute as inline. > > I'm all for using the data category directly in HTML5 documents, but we > have to realize many tools that produce such QA information are working > with XML and often bilingual documents, not HTML5. > Arle said today that one use case is to present the quality information in a browser. Here, with CSS, you can make QA information visible to users without additional software. From this I understand why the inline markup has a need. But we don't need to have everything as inline markup - for CSS, it makes sense anyway mostly for metadata with a closed set of values, and not for the complex open ended QA information one could produce from language tool. Best, Felix > > > -- 3) Replacements > > I've noticed the "replacements='This'" attribute in LanguageTool. > This is something we've talked about as well. It seems the attribute > didn't make it to Arle's table. > But I believe it is an important information fairly easy to use across > tools. > One thing we should maybe take into account would be to allow for multiple > proposals (e.g. for spell-checking). > > > Cheers, > -ys > > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 12:51:57 UTC