Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

Hi Dave, all,

apologies, I'm behind things. I thought we'd agreed at the f2f meeting that
there is just an URI pointing to tool information, nothing else. See
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html

[

Felix: You could have a seperate script element for each standoff item.

… pitty Yves cannot be on the phone. He has raised concerns: anything
possible, tool with element it in, or define a schema. There is a drawback
that you restrict people to xml processing, what about the case of RDF or
audio. Does everyone who needs the element need XML?
...

<fsasaki> "Disambiguation|file:///tools.xml#T2" > "Disambiguation|
http://enrycher.com/v1.2/language-en"

Felix: Paste proposal into chat, from Yves, this URI itself is just a URI,
no further information, self-contained in the URL. This tool is X, in Lang
Y, in the URL where each tool can create the tool itself. But in a large
document this is the list of annotation with URI = tool1, URI = tool2. Dont
restrict the URI being retrieved and XML removes this restriction.

Dave Lewis: Naoto has interest in this.

… any other comments else I'll take this on board, update text, get
feedback from Tadej and Yves. Try to update and send off today (2nd Nov).
Tadej: I like felix's suggestion on URI encoding. All people will not be
able to encode in a common format but good to provide best-practices.
]

So why do we discuss the toolinfo element and id resolution in "script" at
all?

Sorry for the additional loop,

Felix

2012/11/7 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi Jirka,
> Thanks for that.
>
> So to check, does the solution suggested by Yves, i.e. reflecting the
> toolInfo id in the script id,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2012Nov/0019.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0019.html>
> and only having one toolInfo element per script as discussed in.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2012Nov/0038.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0038.html>
> solve this problem?
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
> On 05/11/2012 15:59, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>
>> On 2.11.2012 14:29, Dave Lewis wrote:
>>
>>  For HTML this works when the tool info is external to the file. However,
>>> it doesn't work when the tool information is held with the file. Here we
>>> could use the XML in htm:script element solution that we use for mark-up
>>> in some of the data categories (e.g. Quality Issue). In this case we
>>> would need to specify in the spec the element type the IRI refers to.
>>>
>>> So we would need the following wording:
>>> "Where the IRI in not used in a its:toolRefs attribute in an XML
>>> document or not for pointing to an external resource in a its-tool-refs
>>> attributed in a HTML document, then it MUST refer to a its:toolInfo
>>> element."
>>>
>> This is not technically possible. In HTML its:toolInfo inside <script>
>> element and is not exposed as a markup, it's just plain text inside
>> <script> which doesn't have ID and can't be directly addressed.
>>
>>                         Jirka
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow