W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Test Case 0058 / XHTML+RDFa 1.1

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:32:10 -0400
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
CC: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <096A83A7-D1AC-4F1D-91DE-BD11C788F8AE@greggkellogg.net>
On Apr 27, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Alex Milowski wrote:

> So, should these tests be fixed or skipped?

We still run RDFa 1.0 tests to determine processor validity. Many processors implement both RDFa 1.0 and 1.1, although that will be of decreasing value over time.

If you look at the test suite, you'll see that you can set the version to either 1.0 or 1.1 (and 1.1 with vocabulary expansion). Doing so shows a different set of tests.

For your purposes, you should just run those that are for rdfa1.1.

Gregg

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Alex Milowski wrote:
>> 
>>> ...and 0081, and 0082.  It is the same markup structure repeated over
>>> again in slightly different situations. :)
>> 
>> 0248: "multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rev); RDFa 1.1 version"
>> 0249: "multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rel and @rev); RDFa 1.1 version"
>> 
> 
> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> 
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
> 
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 00:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 28 April 2012 00:32:54 GMT