Re: Summary: Green Turtle Status - RDFa Test Suite

Optional would be complete acceptable to me.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:

> 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.
>



-- 
--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