RE: [ISSUE-34] Localization Quality

Hi all,

The latest try for the quality-related data categories is here:

Below is a summary of the main changes and some notes/questions:

--- Two data categories:

As we've discussed, I've split the information into two data categories: Localization Quality and Localization Quality Score.

I've renamed 'Localization Quality Profile' to 'Localization Quality Score' because it seems that's what the second data category provides: a way to score a document.

I've renamed 'Localization Quality Issue' to 'Localization Quality' because the attributes names were consistent that way. But I suppose we could go the other way and rename the attributes instead.

What happened to the profile? Both data categories offer an attribute that point to it. It is a bit redundant but it allows to truly separate scoring a document from marking up issues.

--- Just 4 pieces of information:

The 'Localization Quality' data category carries four pieces of information: the type, the comment, the severity and the reference to the profile. I've dropped all the others--not quite stable--information. It seems we have support to implement those, and we should probably get those done before re-visiting possible additions.

By dropping the tool-specific code, we can also simplify greatly the profile reference: No need for QNames anymore. My solution for the tool-specific code is to use data- in HTML or a custom namespace in XML.

--- Required attributes

I'm still not exactly sure how to organize the attributes for the global rules.
For example, should we be able to mix pointers and values for the different information?
Also, technically, one could have a rule with just locQualityType='uncategorized', which wouldn't be very useful. So we may need additional constraints.

--- Severity

It seems the value for the severity information is the only one that is a bit controversial. I think we can map anything to 0-100, but that's just my opinion: others disagree. We should be able to come up with a solution for this. I think this is an important information that's worth the time.

--- Standoff local markup

As discussed, there is now a standoff way to provide local markup. We just use an attribute that points to another place where we can have a list of issues. We provide the elements for XML, and use special <span> in HTML.

The important part here is that, within this context, the scope of the attributes is different: it pertains to the content of the element where the reference is called rather than the content of the element where the attributes are defined.

--- Pointers and HTML

I wonder if the pointers mechanism really make sense in HTML (in general, not just for localization quality): Since HTML is a specific format we shouldn't have to provide a mechanism to map constructs that are equivalent to our its-... attributes.


Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:30:51 UTC