> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > [ . . . ] > I think what would be consistent with our earlier decisions > would be to > make the test informative, on the basis that it shows plausible > implementation behaviour in the face of (slightly) ill-formed input, > which the spec does not cover. An implementation that refused to fire > #rule_rdfxbase would, at a formal level, be correct. An erratum to that effect sounds fine to me. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 18:49:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2008 18:49:28 GMT