W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Re: toward tests for spec#issue-mt-ns

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:56:25 -0600
To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1162403785.8627.232.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 11:44 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 01:27 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > I added another test to sorta show why sq1 has
> > an empty result:
> > 
> >     <#sq1a>     a :Test;
> >          dc:title "explain sq1 result: the namespace document has
> > no/empty GRDDL result";
> >          :description "explain sq1 result: the namespace document has
> > no/empty GRDDL result";
> >          :inputDocument <sq1ns.xml>;
> >          :outputDocument <sq1-output.rdf>;
> > 	 .
> 
> That one is actually more directly relevant to the discussion we had
> today. I'm considering making it a separate issue, in order to
> facilitate interactions with the TAG.
> 
> As a data point, I asked cwm what it thinks, and it does
> not see any triples there because it does not specify
> application/xml among the MIME types that it's willing
> to accept when it GETs the representation, and www.w3.org
> chooses to give a 406 error (note that per the HTTP
> spec, it MAY give a 200 OK response with application/xml
> in this case).
> 
> 
> $ python $swap/cwm.py http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/sq1ns

As another data point, here the server gives 200 OK with
application/xml rather than 406...

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2005/grddl-ts/sq1ns.xml?content-type=application/xml

and cwm and rdflib both treat that XML content as real RDF, not a
picture of RDF.

i.e. they answer "yes" to today's poll.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 17:56:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT