W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Updated RDFa-in-text/html tests

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:34:40 +0100
Cc: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <10B4EBA7-6154-4138-A688-B4858CC67963@jenitennison.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Shane,

On 4 Jun 2009, at 21:57, Shane McCarron wrote:
> Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> Oh, and there are two test cases where rdfQuery's response is  
>> classed as a failure when I think it matches the expected triple.  
>> These are "Empty xmlns value" and "Empty xmlns value overriding non- 
>> empty". In both cases, the expected result is '<> <{BASE}#test>  
>> "Test".' and I think that's what rdfQuery generates (with {BASE}  
>> replaced by the base URI of the test case).
>
> FWIW - RDFa requires the use of XML Namespaces 1.0, not 1.1.  As a  
> result, I think that both of these tests are wrong.  As Philip  
> points out, in XML Namespaces 1.0 an empty xmlns value is illegal,  
> so such a value MUST be ignored by an RDFa processor.  My  
> implementation does not correctly do that, but I am updating it  
> right now.


Ha, good point. This falls into the category of an illegal namespace  
declaration, which in this case means the prefix is unbound, the Curie  
illegal, and no triple created. This same kind of reasoning applies,  
in my opinion, to:

   * "Non-NCName xmlns prefix"
   * "Colon in prefix"
   * "Safe CURIE containing square brackets"

Thanks,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 21:35:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 June 2009 21:35:12 GMT