W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: comments on GRDDL tests (degenerate case of RDF in GRDDL, #issue-mt-ns)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:58:09 -0500
Message-Id: <5e23e0f8c42c18a16bf8737294e66e09@w3.org>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 4) The sq1ns.xml test is inconsistent with the pending projects.rdf =>  
> projects.rdf test.

Indeed; note "DanC now thinks this is wrong" in testlist1.html.

>  My code currently assumes a file
> with root element in the RDF namespace can be read as RDF/XML. I will  
> extend this to be that a document served as application/rdf+xml can be  
> read as RDF/XML. If the WG is undecided about this issue, I am happpy  
> to wait, and I have no particular opinion one way or another about the  
> root element; (if the server serves application/rdf+xml then I will  
> feel free to apply an RDF/XML parser).

Indeed, the WG is not yet decided on this issue, but I lean toward the  
assumption
in your current code. I took an action in our 10 Jan
discussion of #issue-mt-ns:

"ACTION: DanC to write spec text for content negotiation use case.  
(Specifically recognizing RDF)"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/att-0014/ 
10-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item11

I'll try to remember to let you know when I have some text.

> I am not yet attempting the tests that require processing of a schema  
> or profile document ... tomorrow or friday maybe???

I look forward to it.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 19:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC