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

Re: comments on GRDDL tests (base URIs)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:01:10 -0500
Message-Id: <03c8c7a6bd43e06f44a2e91ecad730fc@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:
[...]
> 5) Bigger issue
> I initially got confused, because for some of the tests the input and 
> output documents contain different RDF! (Not just the testlist1 
> document). The problem is that the files are identical (i.e. the 
> output files are exactly what an XSLT transform would produce).
> But, the original document is read with one base, e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1.html
> and the output document is read with a different one, e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1.rdf
> This gives different results.

Well, yeah; so don't do that.

> For that particular case, I passed the test (modulo point 1), by using 
> content negotiation to get the two versions of the file from
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1

This business of using the test manifests as a test case is sorta cute, 
but it's
not something I'm putting a priority on.

For the tests that are actually in the current manifests, I think the 
base URIs
of the input documents are reasonably clear.

> For some of the tests this cannot be done, since they do not have a 
> common URL with content negotiation.

Really? Which tests?

>  I am not sure what change I am suggesting. In my code, I end up 
> reading the output file as if it were from the input file, before 
> comparing the two RDF graphs.

exactly.

> Jeremy
>


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 20:01:30 UTC

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