Re: Summary: Green Turtle Status - RDFa Test Suite

I understand your position.  And in general we should only be specifying
valid content.  xml:base is not valid in XHTML 1.1-based RDFa.

If there is a test that concerns itself with this, I am (obviously) open to
making that optional.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> Processors, like browsers, don't make that distinction.  It is just
> application/xhtml+xml and the doctype is just, for most if not all cases,
> ignored.  The document gets run through the same XML processing to produce
> an "XML DOM" and so xml:base is handled as expected.
>
> If xml:base is present, such processors are going to use it.  The
> consequence is that an RDFa processor is going to use it.
>
> That's why I'm advocating getting out of the business of trying to police
> XHTML versions and whether xml:base allowed.  That's an XHTML conformance
> issue and not an RDFa conformance issue.
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, XHTML 1.1 is based upon XHTML Modularization, and that spec
>> specifically prohibits xml:base (xml:base is not in the content model)
>> because it would mean that documents written as what is now called
>> 'polyglot' (but which back then we called hybrid) and served as both
>> text/html and application/xhtml+xml would end up processed differently.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:
>>
>>> On May 23, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 22, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to submit an EARL with a 100% on all tests for all variants of
>>>> XML, XHTML1, HTML4, XHTML5, and HTML5 but these 3 remaining tests cause me
>>>> problems as I've detailed in previous e-mails.  I believe these are issues
>>>> surrounding the test cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Alex, I ment to get back to you today on these issues; I'll look
>>>> into them more tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Note that we're really just looking for HTML5 reports, but it's good to
>>>> have them all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to use the test suite directly without all the trickery I
>>> went through last time.  So far, I have succeeded in that I'm using a
>>> simple Jena-based service I build to test the outcomes.  It has worked well
>>> and I found some tests that weren't necessarily included in the JSON-LD
>>> manifest I was using previously.  As a result, I'll have an EARL for all
>>> the various test categories (i.e. XML, XHTML1, HTML4, XHTML5, and HTML5).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In summary:
>>>>
>>>> Test 0109 / XHTML1
>>>>
>>>> This cannot be enforced in XHTML1 as xml:base processing will have
>>>> already happened during most, if not all, modern XML processing.  Test 0109
>>>> isn't listed in the tests for XHTML5 and I don't believe it should be
>>>> required for XHTML1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, xml:base is _not_ used in XHTML1, but we did add it to
>>>> XHTML5. If you're saying that the XHTML1 DOM model prevents this from being
>>>> ignored, that's an interesting data point. Perhaps someone else has more
>>>> perspective on why it must be ignored in XHTML1, and if tha is normative,
>>>> or just the interpretation of a test; I don't think we can change any tests
>>>> other than for HTML5 related specs at this point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that there is no such thing as an XHTML1 versus XHTML5 DOM.
>>>  There is just an XML DOM used for XHTML and so XHTML1 and XHTML5 get
>>> treated exactly the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, the processing rules for XHTML+RDFa 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 differ.
>>> XHTML1 uses the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 rules and XHTML5 uses the HTML+RDFa 1.1
>>> rules, which do have some extensions for the XHTML case (namely xml:base),
>>> but also include the other differences for HTML5 processing.
>>>
>>> It is perfectly valid for a working group to change the test suite over
>>> time and most certainly has happened for other working groups.  I know
>>> we've had to adjust the test suite for XProc after REC to correctly match
>>> the specification or errata.
>>>
>>> I don't think this WG should be in the business of enforcing XHTML rules
>>> for processing the xml:base attribute.
>>>
>>> Again, my opinion, but this test is impossible to pass for a
>>> browser-based processor without doing things that would be considered
>>> "wrong" otherwise.  That is, I could try to "undo" xml:base but I really
>>> feel that would cause havoc for normal users who expected it to work
>>> because they put it into the document.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is really useful input, as the intention is that a processor using
>>> the DOM should be able to pass the specs. From my perspective, I'd be happy
>>> to include xml:base processing in XHTML1. Similarly, if xml:lang cannot
>>> work for the HTML5 DOM making this non mandatory would be okay too. I don't
>>> think implementations should have to re-implement element language
>>> detection bacause of xml:lang. However, changing these will require some WG
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Test 0256 / HTML4 and HTML5
>>>>
>>>> The xml:lang attribute is not recognized in HTML syntax documents and
>>>> so the test will never succeed without violating the HTML5 specification.
>>>>  The xml:lang attribute is not mentioned in HTML4 [1].  This test should be
>>>> removed for anything in HTML syntax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there isn't an HTML5+RDFa spec, it's just been treated like
>>>> HTML5+RDFa for most purposes, we could even just take it out of the test
>>>> suite, but it is the only version of HTML that is a REC right now for which
>>>> RDFa has any definition.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if something changes here, as I recall that @xml:lang as a
>>>> non-namespaces attribute was to be treated like @lang; perhaps this is the
>>>> peril of working against a living spec.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In either HTML4 or the non-REC HTML5, xml:lang isn't recognized in HTML
>>> syntax as the attribute we process.  I don't think anyone should expect
>>> xml:lang to work in HTML syntax as there aren't namespaces and so neither
>>> should RDFa.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we should just remove this test as it just doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, but we need WG concensus to change this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The manifests I'm using for these tests are:
>>>>
>>>> XHTML1: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/xhtml1/manifest.ttl
>>>> HTML5: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/html5/manifest.ttl
>>>> HTML4: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/html4/manifest.ttl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about XHTM5+RDFa? Do you intend to test that too?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> All the tests for XHTML5 pass as the xml:lang attribute gets processed
>>> in XML syntax.
>>>
>>> Here's my current status:
>>>
>>> HTML5    195 / 196  - 0256 does not pass
>>> XHTML5  197 / 197
>>> HTML4    167 / 169  - 0256 and 0303 do not pass
>>> XHTML1  180 / 181  - 0109 does not pass
>>> XML         125 / 125
>>>
>>> If I can sort these last tests, I can submit an EARL for all variants at
>>> 100%.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the last 0.1% that takes 99.9% of the time :P
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> --
>>> --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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shane P. McCarron
>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --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
>



-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.