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

RE: 2 test cases

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:51:15 -0000
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E8A2E2BF@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

> > I'd like to put consideration of two test cases on the agenda:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1#title_author
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist1#rdfa1
> > 
> > It would be real handy if we had run two implementations on these 
> > tests, cos then we'd have a chance of approving them.  Note 
> the first 
> > of these is the Steven King test case.
> I'm a little confused; I guess I'm OK to take this as a 
> proposal to adopt it as is, never mind your earlier concerns. 
> If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

I've raised a question about the Steven King test case.  However the
issue is resolved it won't affect implementations, so I consider the
issue to be editorial.  

I'd like the WG to look at the point I've made and decide whether we
think it constitutes a real problem with the spec.  If folks look at it
say that they understand the point I've made and they are fine with the
test case as is, then so am I* and if we have a couple of
implementations we can approve it.  If folks say they think there might
be a problem, then I hope someone will take an action to propose an

I'm keen we don't rathole on this - because it is a tarpit.  My advice
is to not spend a lot of time on it.  If there is doubt - just avoid the
issue.  If we are confident - then its fine as is.


* I'm not just wimping out here.  My current understanding is that if
folks don't think there is problem, there really isn't - I think some
philosopher wittered (sic) on about that sort of thing at length a
little while back.

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 08:51:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:09 UTC