Re: additional test needed

I actually didn't realize test 11 exercised the funcitonality un til 
Manu pointed it out (privately).  However, yes - since there is explicit 
text about dealing with XMLLiteral as a specified datatype, I think a 
copy of test 11 that did that might be good.  Might I suggest that 
instead of using the prefix "rdf" we use something else?  That way if an 
implementation mistakenly is testing for the literal "rdf:XMLLiteral" it 
would fail the test.

Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am not sure what you want to test. We do have test #11 to see if the 
> generated literal is indeed xml literal.
>
> Maybe the only additional variant of this test could be when the 
> datatype is explicitly set to XMLLiteral (instead of relying on the 
> @datatype="" and the recognition that the children do indeed include 
> xml tags, which is test #11). Ie, Test #11 seems to be *more* than the 
> basic XML Literal generation.
>
> Shane, is this what you were referring to, or was there more that you 
> thought of?
>
> Ivan
>
> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> Looking through the current tests I dont see any that exercise the 
>> RDF datatype XMLLiteral - we probably need some?
>>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com