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

Please, regard this comment as addressed.
Jeremy

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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/
>