User:Ergaurav3/Discussion Gsoc Unify Metadix - Revision history

Mlforcada: /* Basic Understanding of the project: */

2014-03-20T12:20:22Z

Basic Understanding of the project:

Unhammer: /* Comments/Suggestion */

2014-03-17T07:38:24Z

Comments/Suggestion

Unhammer: minor changes

2014-03-17T07:30:03Z

minor changes

Unhammer at 07:29, 17 March 2014

2014-03-17T07:29:05Z

Ergaurav3: /* Comments/Suggestion */

2014-03-16T22:27:07Z

Comments/Suggestion

Ergaurav3 at 21:32, 16 March 2014

2014-03-16T21:32:43Z

Ergaurav3 at 21:24, 16 March 2014

2014-03-16T21:24:31Z

Ergaurav3 at 21:23, 16 March 2014

2014-03-16T21:23:34Z

Ergaurav3 at 21:22, 16 March 2014

2014-03-16T21:22:29Z

Ergaurav3 at 21:20, 16 March 2014

2014-03-16T21:20:03Z

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 . The xslt and other pre-processing needs to applied manually on the meta dictionary files before we actually compile the dictionary files.
+::: Not manually! --[[User:Mlforcada|Mlforcada]] ([[User talk:Mlforcada|talk]]) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 . The xslt files varies from language pair to pair.
@@ Line 88: / Line 90: @@
 ----
 == Comments/Suggestion ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 17 March 2014
Line 96:		Line 96:

	[Comment Shared by Francis] Information about portuguese v="" and occitan alt="" is missing.		[Comment Shared by Francis] Information about portuguese v="" and occitan alt="" is missing.

			Is it possible / necessary to make metadix more general? Currently, you can insert _one_ string or tag per pardef call. What if we discover a language where it would really help to insert two strings? Something like <nowiki><code><e><i>foo</i><par n="foo/a[X]b[Y]c" prm="a" prm="b"/></code></nowiki> where the first attribute replaces the first <prm/> and the second replaces the second. Or maybe they should be named … If we're reworking metadix anyway, we shouldn't miss opportunities to improve the functionality, ''if'' it can be usefully improved. --[[User:Unhammer\|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer\|talk]]) 07:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ''One contains the <par> tags and the other contains the <sa> tags''
-<sa/> tags: en-ca, en-es (en.metadix)
+* <sa/> tags: en-ca, en-es (en.metadix)
-<prm/> tags: br-fr, fr-es, oc-ca, oc-es (fr.metadix, oc.metadix)
+* <prm/> tags: br-fr, fr-es, oc-ca, oc-es (fr.metadix, oc.metadix)
 The tag <prm/> is a marker that is used to place variable text part in the paradigm definition.
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ----
 == Basic Understanding of the project:==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ''One contains the <par> tags and the other contains the <sa> tags''
-<prm/> tags: en-ca, en-es
+<sa/> tags: en-ca, en-es (en.metadix)
-<sa/> tags: fr-es, oc-ca, oc-es
+<prm/> tags: br-fr, fr-es, oc-ca, oc-es (fr.metadix, oc.metadix)
-The tag <prm/> is the marker that is used to place the variable text part in the paradigm definition.
+The tag <prm/> is a marker that is used to place variable text part in the paradigm definition.
-The tag <sa> has to be placed where the optional grammatical symbol should appear.
+The tag <sa> is placed where an optional grammatical symbol (tag) should appear.
 For the case of <sa/>, we have:
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 </e>
-<sa/> will be replaced by the <nowiki><s n="unc"></nowiki>
+In the pardef, <sa/> will be replaced by the <nowiki><s n="unc"></nowiki>
 For the case <prm/>, if we have something like:
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 </e>
-<prm/> will be replaced by the </lh>.
+In the pardef, <prm/> will be replaced by the string "lh".
 nn-nb:

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 16 March 2014
Line 96:		Line 96:

	'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the project.'''		'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the project.'''

			[Comment Shared by Francis] Information about portuguese v="" and occitan alt="" is missing.

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
+== Comments/Suggestion ==
-'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the projects (may be by adding on this page).'''
+'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the project.'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 16 March 2014
Line 92:		Line 92:


	'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the projects.'''		'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the projects (may be by adding on this page).'''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== ''''''Basic understanding of the Metadix and other formats:'''''' ==
+== Basic understanding of the Metadix and other formats ==
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
-== Basic Understanding of the project:
+== Basic Understanding of the project:==
- ==
@@ Line 77: / Line 76: @@
 . The lttoolbox should be updated so we don’t need to do the pre-processing when we are treating the pair that contains the meta dictionary files.
+'''Approach 1'''
-'''
-Approach 1:'''
 Modifying the xslt's file to make them common.
@@ Line 84: / Line 82: @@
 The makefile should be updated according so the dictionary file is generated with a similar name it’s for the other pairs (non-meta dictionary). So, we have everything similar after the installation is done.
-'''Approach 2''':
+'''Approach 2'''
 Modifying the xslt's file to make them common.
@@ Line 94: / Line 92: @@
-'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the projects.
+'''Please share your comments on my understanding about the metadix formats and the projects.'''
-'''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''
-Basic understanding of the Metadix and other formats:'''
+== ''''''Basic understanding of the Metadix and other formats:'''''' ==
 I have been looking for the following language pair:
@@ Line 55: / Line 56: @@
-'''Basic Understanding of the project:'''
+== Basic Understanding of the project:
+ ==
-== Problem with Current Scenario: ==
+'''Problem with Current Scenario:'''
@@ Line 65: / Line 68: @@
 . The xslt files varies from language pair to pair.
+'''
-==
+Expected:'''
-Expected: ==
@@ Line 75: / Line 77: @@
 . The lttoolbox should be updated so we don’t need to do the pre-processing when we are treating the pair that contains the meta dictionary files.
+'''
+Approach 1:'''
+Modifying the xslt's file to make them common.
-== Approach 1: ==
 The makefile should be updated according so the dictionary file is generated with a similar name it’s for the other pairs (non-meta dictionary). So, we have everything similar after the installation is done.
+'''Approach 2''':
-==
-Approach 2: ==
+Modifying the xslt's file to make them common.
 In, lttoolbox we should update the lt-comp and allows it to compile the metadictionary files along with the dictionary files and when we will have the case of metadictionary files, we will perform the pre-processing and then the basic compilation of the dictionary file. But doesn’t mean the pre-processing always at the time of compliation ? We may compile only when there is need to compile (the pre-processing is not already done.)