- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:45:31 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: ogbujic@ccf.org, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Well, in that case, I will probably propose approving all the tests that Jena passes (well passes tomorrow rather than today!) It's not ideal, but if other implementations differ during LC we can rescind/modify tests. A lot of the tests that we won't have two passes for have been added to address LC issues against the spec. We avoided too much change in the spec by agreeing to add clarifying tests. Unfortunately these were precisely where the implementations got it wrong, so our normal rule (two implementations) doesn't work. Jeremy Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 17:50 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> The test document is intended for LC. >> I think missing small amounts of informative text would be acceptable. >> >> I also think that we can publish a LC test cases, in which many of the >> tests have not been approved. I may try drafting some Status of This >> Document text that explains that. > > Good luck; LC is explicitly "there are no open issues that we know of" > and an unapproved test sure smells a lot like an open issue that > we know of. > >> As is, it would be good if we can manage to approve more tests this week >> before publication. > > I'm OK with removing any tests we don't manage to approve. > > I mean them from the test cases document/manifest/zip only; we can keep > the input/output documents lying around in the web. > -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 18:45:56 UTC