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

Re: Additional test requirements

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:05:27 +0100
Cc: public-rdfa-wg WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F862858B-59E8-462E-8E99-033F3A27342C@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Gregg,

I have added some tests. Not all that you describe, maybe you can take care of the second half...

See below

Ivan

On Mar 14, 2012, at 20:35 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> Just going through the Core and XHTML docs to see what other tests we might need:
> 
> 4.1 RDFa Processor Conformance
> [[[
> A conforming RDFa Processor must preserve white space in both plain literals and XML literals. 
> ]]]
> 
> Test 0099 looks for preservation in plain literals, but we don't seem to have a test specifically to look for whitespace preservation in XML Literals.

Test #261: I have copied a simple XML Literal test and added a new line...


> 
> [[[
> A conforming RDFa Processor must examine the media type of a document it is processing to determine the document's Host Language. If the RDFa Processor is unable to determine the media type, or does not support the media type, the RDFa Processor must process the document as if it were media type application/xml. 
> ]]]
> 
> This may be handled implicitly given different XHTML1 behavior, but we might not have something that is intentionally ambiguous to verify that it falls back to application/xml.

That is something the test harness should do, shouldn't it? Ie, returning a wrong media type...

> 
> 5.2 White space within attribute values
> 
> [[[
> When attributes accept a white space separated list of tokens, an RDFa Processor must ignore any leading or trailing white space.
> ]]]
> 
> Test 0131 has some interior whitespace in the form of escaped whitespace, but not any leading or trailing whitespace.

Added #262 for this.

> 
> Just some details to check in the current test implementations from processing steps:
> 
> Step 5:
> 
> * @property without @content or @datatype
>  * with @about (satisfied by Test 0051)
>  * as root element (needs test)

I added #263, but test please: I put <$TCPATH/0263.xhtml> as the required subject; is this fine? Will it be changed to the .html file for the HTML5 case?

>  * with parent subject (needs test)

Added #264, #265 the first with an implicit about on the <html> element, the second with an explicit one.

>  * with @typeof and @resource (satisfied by Test 0052)
>  * with @typeof and @href (needs test)

Actually, 0052 is not it, that one does not use @property. So I added #266 and #267 for the resource and href cases

>  * with @typeof and @src (needs test)

Test #268

>  * as BNode (satisfied by Test 0250)
> * @property with @content or @datatype
>  * with @about, @href, @src or @resource
>  * otherwise, as root (needs test)

Tests #269-271

>  * otherwise, with @typeof (needs test)

I am sure this is tested somewhere, but I have not checked... this seems to be an RDF 1.0 behaviour, too!

>  * otherwise with parent object (needs test)
>    * and @property (needs test)
>  * with @typeof (needs test)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by these last items...

Ok, I stop for today!!!

ivan



> 
> Step 6:
> 
> * with @about (needs test)
>  * and @typeof (needs test)
> * as root element (needs test)
> * otherwise, with parent object
> * with @resource, @href, @src (satisfied by Test 0233)
> * otherwise with @typeof and with @about *satisfied by Test 0048)
> * otherwise with @typeof and without @about (satisfied by Test 0232)
> 
> Additionally, from XHTML+RDFa 1.1
> 
> Step 6 (should it be 5?)
> 
> head or body with @about
> head or body with @resource
> head or body without @about or @resource
> 
> Step 7 (should it be 6?)
> 
> head or body with @about
> head or body with @resource
> head or body without @about or @resource
> 
> Gregg
> 
> 


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







Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 18:04:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:56 UTC