W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > August 2012

RE: [ISSUE-34] Draft of quality section

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:53:03 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "'Arle Lommel'" <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, "'Multilingual Web LT Public List'" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.056690fddb.assp.05668e3307.008601cd748a$d1d2bb90$757832b0$@com>
> In ITS 1.0 we were very careful not to allow implementations 
> to say "I implement the localization note data category 
> globally, and I implement only locNote and locNote ref, but 
> not locNotePointer or locNoteRefPointer. This is very helpful 
> for interoperability. If application A (or a human) creates 
> localization note metadata and sends it to implementation B 
> that claims "I implement the localization note data category 
> globally", application A can be sure that all localization 
> note metadata will be processed by application B.
> ...
> So the main question is if we agree on above approach?


> Now, coming back to quality ...
> ...
> loc-quality-score: mandatory, value is 0-100 or "unknown"
> loc-quality-severity: mandatory, value is "unknown" or what Arle 
> had in the table "permissive values"

Mmm... defaulting to "unknown" for numeric value will cause some minor headaches for some implementations that would store the parsed value as a numeric. I guess they can convert to -1.

Another note for score and severity: why do we have one between 0 and 100 and the other between 0.00 and 1.00. It's exactly the same thing just using a different notation. Couldn't we go for 0-100 for both: that way implementation could use shorts to store the values, rather than the more clumsy floats?

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 10:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:50 UTC