Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
The extension is to keep track of the issues generated by CheckMate, which
predate ITS. We can change ITSLQI() to keep track of the ITS type when it
founds one and make sure it sets it again if an okp:lqiType is found.
I think that would solve at least the Ocelot issue. I've tested on a round
trip, and the ITS type is preserved.
This should not have side-effects on CheckMate.
I can make the change.
But the ultimate solution is probably to align better the CheckMate types with
the ITS types (http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#lqissue-typevalues).
I suppose we could add CM type for all ITS types without a correspondance in
this table:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Localization_quality_types_mappings
I've noticed two other issues when trying to open the example file on CheckMate:
a) CheckMate expects the annotation to be on <source> or/and <target>, not on
<trans-unit>. I'm not sure of the implications of changing that. The effect now
is that the Ocelot's LQI are not listed in CheckMate.
b) The stand-off notation saved after </file> is invalid and by default
CheckMate checks XLIFF against the schema, so it can't open the file. We know
of the issue (it's https://code.google.com/p/okapi/issues/detail?id=363) but
with CheckMate doing the schema validation by default, it makes the problem a
bit glaring. But I'm not sure how to solve this.
Original comment by yves.sav...@gmail.com
on 29 Nov 2014 at 1:52
Thanks Yves.
For problem a), would it be possible to fix this problem (at least as a
transitional effort) entirely at the code level? LQI data lives on
source/target/etc because that's what the mapping says; CheckMate does it
differently, but changing that will probably cause problems with legacy files.
But with enough refactoring, we could make all the quality issues anywhere in
the TU accessible "at the TU level" via a method call. The LQI issues would
still be attached to the same objects, but could also be gathered as part of
"TU metadata".
This might not be a small change, though, since a lot of this metadata is
hidden in the annotation system in semi-freeform.
Original comment by tingley
on 29 Nov 2014 at 5:58
I pushed a unittest to verify your fix (commit c8a06f9f1).
Original comment by tingley
on 30 Nov 2014 at 8:39
Yves, I'm happy to resolve this here and split off the other changes to new
issues, but if you'd like to keep it open to track the other CheckMate work,
that's fine.
Original comment by tingley
on 30 Nov 2014 at 8:40
Original comment by yves.sav...@gmail.com
on 30 Nov 2014 at 11:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
tingley
on 29 Nov 2014 at 6:16Attachments: