Re: Newly approved TCs - 122, 123, 126, 131, 134 and 140

Manu Sporny wrote:
> The XHTML+RDFa test suite has been updated to include a number of test
> cases that we've approved over the past 4 months (but I failed to mark
> as approved until just now).
> 
> I vaguely recall us approving TCs 122, 123 and 126, but could not find a
> record of us doing so. Those test cases pass at least 3 implementations
> and there was nothing that jumped out at being invalid about those
> tests. However, if somebody else could check them out and make sure I
> didn't make a mistake, that would be great.
> 

TC 122: seems o.k. to me
TC 123: seems o.k. to me (and I distinctly remember the discussion on
that, but I did not find the right mail references)
TC 126: seems o.k. to me

Ivan

> There is a clear record of TCs 131, 134 and 140 being approved.
> 
> We had said that TC 140 shouldn't generate the triple listed in the
> SPARQL, but I can't remember why now (and it wasn't minuted). TC140 has
> been published as a negative test, but Philip meant it to be a positive
> test. Why should TC 140 not generate the triple listed in the SPARQL?
> 
> -- manu
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf