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

Re: issue-51 too many global rules

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:52:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czrN=_H2JVdJF=RHE5sMy0QD8cx+BCQ=u9zKLTmg1XTUyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
2012/10/23 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> > So that means we need only the standoff markup pointer rules,
> > and no other pointer attributes from the XLIFF point of view?
>
> Yes, I believe so.
>

OK.


>
> There are cases like xlf:maxbytes that could be mapped to such
> information, but in this case it also needs other attributes (encoding,
> etc.) and because the overriding is complete, I don't think you can have a
> mixed of some info using pointers and other using ITS direct markup for a
> given data category.


For ITS 1.0 we actually had a statement forbidding such a mix anyway:
http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#basic-concepts-addingpointing
"The functionalities of adding information and pointing to existing
information are mutually exclusive. That is to say, attributes for pointing
and adding must not appear at the same rule element."
That was even independent of overriding, but just for one global rule


> In any case Storage Size is not in your list of data categories to be
> amputated of their global rules.
>
>
> > Here it would be interesting to have some data: have you written
> > and used in ITS 1.0 "real life" global rules that add information
> > *without fixed values* to attributes or elements?
>
> Yes, definitely. Very frequently with Localization Note.
>
> I'm less concerned with 'complex/rare' data categories like
> Disambiguation, or MT Confidence, because it's unlikely an existing format
> has the equivalent.
>
>
> > The discussion about dropping global rules started with an example
> > of localization note
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0138.html
>
> Yeah, about that: You'll note that my initial remark had nothing to do
> with pointers. It was a concern about having examples using global rules to
> annotate selected nodes in the document. Those actually don't use pointers
> at all.
>

I know - my point is not about pointers, but about "adding information
*without fixed values* to attributes or elements". I just can't imagine
people writing rules like this

<its:locQualityIssueRule selector="//span[@id='q1']"
locQualityIssueType="typographical" locQualityIssueComent="Sentence without
capitalization" locQualityIssueSeverity="50"/>


That is, tailored to one "span" element. Am I wrong?

Best,

Felix


>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:53:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:56 UTC