Re: RDFa parser implementation issues

Thanks Steph,  I missed that :-(

 Cheers --- Jan

On 02/21/2014 06:01 PM, St�phane Corlosquet wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Partial answer: you will find datetime and time processing steps in the
> HTML+RDFa spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/html-rdfa/
>
> Steph.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl
> <mailto:J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I am trying to implement the RDFa spec [1] for SWI-Prolog's RDF toolkit.
>     Running the XHTML5 test suite, I'm now at:
>
>          Processed 137 tests, 14 failed (89.78% success)
>
>     I do not understand the remaining 14 though.  Here they are:
>
>     #0066: I think this should be a blank node using this production:
>     7.5.5.2 <http://7.5.5.2>: "otherwise, if @typeof is present, then
>     new subject
>             is set to be a newly created bnode;"  What rule did I miss?
>     #0134: The docs only speak about reserved words in the 1.0 --> 1.1
>             changenotes. There are no reserved words in 1.1.  What makes
>             this happen?  Are there implicitely defined terms?
>     #0188: 7.5.13, skip_element=true: should also copy vocab from local
>     context.
>     #0198: Fragile test due to underdefined serialization of the XMLLiteral.
>     #0206: Where the the specification of the default context? Seems to
>             require at least rdf, xsd and owl.  What else?
>     #0272: Where is the spec what should happen to @datetime?
>     #0273: Idem
>     #0274: Idem
>     #0275: <time> is special?  I cannot find that in the document.
>     #0276: Idem
>     #0277: Idem
>     #0281: As #0272
>     #0282: Idem
>     #0287: Idem
>     #0312: Why is rel="nofollow" not processed as a term relative to the
>             default vocabulary?
>     #0319: Seems a bit fragile.  This happens after writing turtle and
>             reading it back with an @base.  Possibly a negative test that
>             the triple relative to the base of the RDFa document is not
>             generated would have been better.
>
>              Thanks --- Jan
>
>     P.s.    Are implementation reports still appreciated?  If so, I'll
>              generate one.
>
>     [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-__rdfa-core-20130822/
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdfa-core-20130822/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steph.

Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 17:09:11 UTC