- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:15:36 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On May 17, 2012, at 15:02 , Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2012 13:41:23 +0200 > Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Very strictly speaking this is a test of the SVG spec together with >> RDFa, but I agree the test should be added. > > Indeed - which is why I wasn't sure if it should be classified as > required. > >> I have added it to github, except that I added as 0304 (and not >> 0310), because that was the next in line. > > OK. I jumped numbers just in case anybody else was working on tests > 304, 305, etc in parallel with me. > >> Oh, and I do not pass this test yet:-) > > Yes, I tested both versions of the RDFa distiller and was surprised to > find that they did not. Is it the fact that the namespaces and xml:base > are defined outside the <rdf:RDF> element that trips you up? Exactly... It works on my machine by now, but I do some other housekeeping before I push it to the server. > I just > threw that little wrinkle in because I'm evil. > :-) > RDF::RDFa::Parser has been passing this one since version 0.22 in > December 2009. :-) > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > ---- 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 Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:12:28 UTC