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

Re: [RDFa] Test Suite - next steps

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:42:11 -0500
Message-ID: <45ECFF33.2010702@w3.org>
To: Wing C Yung <wingyung@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
Wing C Yung wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote on 03/05/2007 08:03:12 PM:
>> Again, all of this infrastructure stuff is well and good, I guess, but
>> what I want most is a handful of fairly complete tests; preferably
>> tests based on examples that are being advertised widely, e.g.
>> those in the primer.
> We are working towards assembling a full test suite. I took the tests
> assembled by Elias several months ago and reduced the redudancy of the
> tests. Then I added some additional tests to test parts of the syntax
> document [1] that weren't covered so that nearly every section has at least
> one test. I'm sure that some cases are missing, but it is a start. This is
> why Michael and I would appreciate some help in looking over the tests.
I'm happy to take a look at a few test cases.

Starting from
I find a repository

and the first input document in there is


It bears a DTD but it's not valid. I still don't see any point in that. 
I understand
some sort of module is in progress; is there an open issue on that?

At least the MIME type isn't text/plain any more. I get the impression that
some javascript/DOM things only work with application/xhtml+xml ; I think
that's worth tracking as an issue. This test case says that
at least some RDFa documents work with text/html; that seems worth
adding to the RDFa requirements document, for review by the HTML WG.

I'm still concerned that there's no follow-your-nose path from the 
document to
the RDFa spec. Is there an open issue on that? The current issues list seems
to be http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2 ; I don't see this
issue there. This seemed to be acknowledged as an open issue last August
Maybe it was addressed and I missed it. Even so, it seems worth adding
to the issues list post-hoc.

> I did not take tests from the Primer [2] or the examples section (section
> 6) of the syntax document because they tend to be longer and test multiple
> aspects of the syntax document. My original aim was to have each test test
> a single behavior specified by the syntax document. Is this not the correct
> way to assemble the test suite?
It's a reasonable way. It's not the only correct way.

I suggest that the examples that are being used to teach people about 
RDFa should get
the sort of scrutiny that comes from including them in the test suite. 
But as I said earlier,
there are many reasonable paths to good test coverage.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/
> Wing

p.s. please excuse any odd formatting in this message. I'm new to 
I'd like it to just send plain text, but I can't always get it to do that.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 05:42:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:22 UTC