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

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/