Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Manu Sporny
This is a call for review for Test Cases 158, 160, 162 and 164. Keep in
mind that each of these tests is a NEGATIVE test... meaning that no
triples should be generated by any of these particular test documents.

Everybody is encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by
this coming Thursday, 1600 UTC.

The test cases can be found at the following URL:

http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/

For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"

Here is a template to follow when responding:

TC158: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC160: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC162: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC164: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Ivan Herman-2


Manu Sporny wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 158, 160, 162 and 164. Keep in
> mind that each of these tests is a NEGATIVE test... meaning that no
> triples should be generated by any of these particular test documents.
>
> Everybody is encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by
> this coming Thursday, 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC158: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
Rejected; I would prefer to add the 'rdf' namespace to TC164 and keep it
there!

> TC160: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

Approve.

> TC162: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

Approve.

> TC164: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>

Approve, but... it may be crisper if the example used a real RDF term,
say, rdfs:comment.

Also, by adding 'rdf' to the list, this may make test #158 unnecessary.

> -- manu
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164 (2nd mail)

Ivan Herman-2
In reply to this post by Manu Sporny
A general comment: although technically correct, having the SPARQL query
say (?s ?p ?o) may cause difficulties as discussed in the last call.
Some implementation may output as a final serialization some extra error
warning, which are triples...

Ivan

Manu Sporny wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 158, 160, 162 and 164. Keep in
> mind that each of these tests is a NEGATIVE test... meaning that no
> triples should be generated by any of these particular test documents.
>
> Everybody is encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by
> this coming Thursday, 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC158: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC160: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC162: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC164: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> -- manu
>
--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Shane McCarron
In reply to this post by Manu Sporny
TC158: approved (I don't mind that this is its own test case, but it
could just be bundled with 164)
TC160: approved
TC162: approved (note that I get an error when I run it - no idea why)
TC164: approved - could add more common ones if we are really trying to
discourage this behavior)


Note that in order to make these tests pass at all, an implementation
MUST NOT implement the new proposed behavior of interpreting CURIEs with
undefined prefixes as URIs - or it MUST implement it only on sources
that are not clearly declaring themselves to be written using version
1.0 of XHTML+RDFa (my implementation now switches on the DOCTYPE or
@version).

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Ben Adida-2
In reply to this post by Manu Sporny

TC158: approved with discussion
TC160: approved with discussion
TC162: approved with discussion
TC164: approved with discussion

The discussion is what Shane brought up: we're now writing test cases
that will explicitly fail our new proposal. That means we need to
carefully think about the "junk" triples that might be generated once we
enable our new proposal, and whether these are really test cases we want.

I don't mind test case duplication. A while back, we agreed on the
principle that we would accept test cases only on the criteria that
they're valid, otherwise combining them becomes an n^2 problem :)

But if everyone else wants to merge 158 and 164, I'm also not opposed.

-Ben

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 158, 160, 162, 164

Manu Sporny
TC158: rejected, merge test with TC164
TC160: approved
TC162: approved
TC164: approved, after merging TC158

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/