Re: [ISSUE-34] Localization Quality

2012/8/20 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Hi all,
>
> The latest try for the quality-related data categories is here:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/LocQuality
>
> 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.
>

I agree. The its-* attributes are ITS markup - just as its:* attributes for
XML. So no need for pointer attributes here.

Felix


>
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow