On Thu, 31 May 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > Brian McBride wrote: > > > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > [...] > > > Actually, that smiley-point is well-made: this testing format > > > shouldn't depend on all the RDF/n3 specs, code, and > > > tutorials, which are in flux... > > > > Yes > > > > [...] > > > > > > We've got terms of the form > > > _:name for "anonymous" terms > > > <absURIref> for URIs > > > "lskdjf" for string literals. > > > > How would we handle relative URI's, e.g.: > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:ID='foo'/> > > I'm proposing that they get absolutized in the expected results; > in this case: > http://example/whatever-the-base-is#foo > > The input to the test is an XML document, and one of the > properties of an XML document is its base URI. (I suppose > some tests might have syntax errors at the XML level; > but in that case, there are no expected results anyway.) > > This might be somewhat tedious: if/when we move the > tests, we have to updated the expected result; copying > them to local disk has to be done in such a way that > the test harness remembers where it came from; etc. > But I think the alternatives are all worse. let me jump in here with XML base! - for the most part it's an ideal spec. Short, snappy, and while it says a bit about where xml bases come from, it leaves what they do to other documents. It would be ideal to expect xml:base to operate under these circumstances. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Whose kung-fu is the best?Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 12:23:54 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:55 EDT