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

Re: loopx tests (discussion)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:18 +0100
Message-ID: <462FA146.50607@hpl.hp.com>
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Then, I propose approving these four tests.

Jeremy


Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 18:31 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>> #loopx
>>>    one pass, one n/a
>>>> #loopx1
>>>    one pass, one n/a
>>>> #loopx2
>>>    one fail (should be n/a), one pass
>>>> #loopx3
>>>    one fail (should be n/a), one n/a.
>>>
>> I think that is enough evidence. The tests are alternatives, with 
>> #loopx3 being the 'true' but too difficult compute answer.
>>
>> The GRDDL.py results should be n/a because it passes the first two.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> Yes, GRDDL.py's EARL output *should* be N/A's for those but isn't now
> primarily because aboutTest.xsl doesn't compute an indication that
> non-maximal results (for tests with multiple output) are 'alternatives'
> to each other.  Also testft.py is currently driven primarily by these
> indications.  But yes, the language of the text in these tests suggests
> (strongly) that this is 'passed' by at least two implementations:
> 
> [[[
> ..In particular, this interpretation and the text in the section that
> follows (8. Security considerations) permits an implementation to only
> pass the first test due to security restrictions against computing
> recursive GRDDL results.
> ]]]
> 
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 18:43:54 GMT

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