On 25 March 2014 13:14, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer <unham...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> "Jim O'Regan" <jore...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 11:05, Francis Tyers
>> <fty...@prompsit.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think this should be fairly convincing. Does anyone have any
>>> objections ? Also, feel free to bring up some new features that I have
>>> forgotten.
>>>
>>
>> I believe this would be the first version of lt-comp that supports alt
>> and v attributes.
>
> And -l/--var-left and -r/--var-right as well I guess?
>
> That could remove a lot of XSLT once makefiles are updated :-)
>
>> Also, I have a tiny feature that allows the user to specify a set of
>> characters to be ignored at runtime (motivated primarily by soft
>> hyphens, but I've left it general[1]). I sent the patch to Sergio to
>> review, but I'd really rather get it in now than wait n years until
>> the next release :)
>>
>> For the curious, I've attached the patch.
>>
>> Current behaviour is:
>> $ echo testing |lttoolbox/lt-proc
>> ~/Apertium/apertium-en-es/en-es.automorf.bin
>> ^test/test<n><sg>/test<vblex><inf>/test<vblex><pres>$^ing/*ing
>>
>> Using this as soft-hyphen.icx:
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0"?>
>> <ignored-chars>
>> <char value="­ "/>
>> </ignored-chars>
>>
>> echo testing |lttoolbox/lt-proc -i soft-hyphen.icx
>> ~/Apertium/apertium-en-es/en-es.automorf.bin
>> ^testing/test<vblex><ger>/test<vblex><pprs>/test<vblex><subs>/testing<n><sg>$
>
> Cool! I've been annoyed at those soft hyphens for a while … This seems
> to work great. I vote for inclusion :)
>
Thank Alexandru. I don't encounter it that often, and probably would
have just ignored it if I hadn't just spent a great deal of time
writing notes for him. Also, it's a cheaper Saturday night's
entertainment than the pub :) (Sunday night's entertainment will take
a little longer to finish...)
>> [1] I believe there was a bug about this, but the bugtracker seems to be
>> down.
>
> Has been for some time :(
>
>
> While on the subject of things that could be sorted out before a
> release, why are some XML validation files .rng and some .dtd? And why
> does apertium include files for lttoolbox formats?
>
> lttoolbox:
> - dix.dtd
> - dix.rng acx.rng
>
> apertium:
> - dix.dtd format.dtd interchunk.dtd modes.dtd postchunk.dtd tagger.dtd
> transfer.dtd
> - acx.rng modes.rng transfer.rng
>
> (I would prefer to rm {dix,acx}.* from apertium, and otherwise either
> have one format for all files, or both formats for all files.)
Because the validators are built from Apertium's Makefile. Which would
also fit the 'why...' pattern, but 'apertium-validate-dictionary' is
slightly more user-friendly than 'lttoolbox-validate-dix' (it matches
the intention, rather the details of the source package).
--
<Sefam> Are any of the mentors around?
<jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
