W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: citing GRDDL test cases normatively Re: @@'s in editor's draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:56:40 +0100
Message-ID: <462DD458.2010206@hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>


I don't find the process argument compelling.

It seems to misunderstand the specific nature of a normative dependency 
between a spec and its test cases, and how the two together fit in a 
call-for-implementations.

A CFI is intended to find bugs in the test cases, rather more than bugs 
in the spec.

How about making the dependency informative, at least for now.

We could always review that decision later.

Jeremy


Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:29 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> Here are some suggestions concerning the @@'s in editor's draft.
>> $Date: 2007/04/18 14:54:08 $
>> $Revision: 1.250 $
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
> 
> Thanks; I these helped a lot with my TODO list.
> 
> I think this suggestion, which I followed, is
> particularly worth noting:
> 
>> @@cite GRDDL test cases?
>> ==============
>>
>> Yes, as a normative ref. With the following text linking to it.
>>
>> Under
>> Preface and Companion Documents
>>
>> add
>> [[
>> <h4 id="intro_testcases">GRDDL Test Cases</h4>
>>
>> <p>The GRDDL Test Cases<a class="norm" href="#testcases">[testcases]</a>
>> provides a collection of tests illustrating this specification.
>> Some of the tests may help clarify the intended
>> reading of the normative text.</p>
>> ]]
> 
> A normative citation on the test cases blows
> away the possibility of doing a CR on the spec
> while the test cases are in last call.
> 
> (I discovered this while trying to update
> the detailed schedule
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/sched7  ).
> 
> But it seems like The Right Thing.
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 09:57:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT