W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

RE: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:06:37 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201255C8B@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Ivan,

Not so sure about @xml:base.

What I know is that we have TC 4 [1] on hold 
because it does not validate due to @xml:base ?!

Shane, any thoughts/explanations?

Cheers,
	Michael

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: W3C RDFa task force
> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
> 
> One thing, though.
> 
> I ran all my tests from my local machine. Ie, the RDF results 
> were _not_ what the sparql requires because the base is the 
> local file name and not the test file URI. It is of course 
> easy to compare things visually.
> Well, that is what you would think: one of my bugs was to 
> handle the relative URI-s properly and I realized the problem 
> only in the second or third test:-)
> 
> I wonder whether we should not add an xml:base in most of the 
> tests (except those that explicitly test xml:base:-).
> 
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan 
> >> Herman
> >> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:49 PM
> >> To: W3C RDFa task force
> >> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
> >>
> >> I have run the tests that are marked as 'approved' either 
> explicitly 
> >> under the heading
> >>
> >> "Review and Approval 2007-08-02"
> >>
> >> of http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC or in the series of 
> >> mails of Ben at the end of last week. After some smallish 
> bugs here 
> >> and there that I had to handle:-(, this implementation 
> passes all of these:
> >>
> >> 0001, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0018, 
> >> 0029, 0030, 0031, 0032
> >>
> >> :-)
> > 
> > Great! Thanks a lot for this information.
> > 
> > We'll  certainly gather your feedback (and hopefully the 
> feedback of 
> > other implementors) and publish it as a 'Implementor's Report'
> > - don't know the correct W3Cish term ... but something like this :)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 	Michael
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
> >  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management  
> JOANNEUM 
> > RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> >   
> >  http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >  
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 20:06:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:09 GMT