- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:43:44 +0200
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Jirka, The xml format I proposed in essence is what you describe: a list of tools and data categories. My proposal to have that as a block of information meant: not adding that to each element, but providing it as a general piece of information. I think the use cases of Declan and Tadej would be satisfied with that. But it seems that Yves use case needs more? Best, Felix 2012/9/22, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>: > On 22.9.2012 13:31, Yves Savourel wrote: > >> But then how can we have a reliable expectations? If a first tool >> generates one data category markup without tool-information and the next >> produces the same data category with tool-information, there is no way to >> be sure any of the tool-information is correct. > > Hi, sorry for interrupting discussion. But it is really necessary to > have such fidelity about tools used? Is there some use-case for > annotating each piece of ITS markup with a tool info? Wouldn't it be > just sufficient to list tools used, maybe with some flag saying which > data categories has been touched by each tool. > > Jirka > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Professional XML consulting and training services > DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Gesendet von meinem Mobilgerät
Received on Saturday, 22 September 2012 16:44:13 UTC