W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: xmlbase error1

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:55:18 +0000
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Message-ID: <8635.1016189718@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Jos De_Roo said:
> Brian said:
> > DaveB, Jos, please can you include this in your review, so we can clear
> > this off this week.
> glad to do that
> can agree with all cases at
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/

Summary: I agree to all the tests:
I don't think I can agree to:

I renamed error001.rdf => test017.rdf as Jeremy asked in
then renamed it back as per:

I don't think error.rdf is an error in the right way - but I really
didn't want to writing test cases for the URI spec RFC2396!  Can some
URI expert tell me if
  (non-hierarchical) base URI: mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com
  resolved with relative URI: relfile
  resulting URI: mailto:relfile

and is this important for us to test?

Alternative proposal: delete this

In test012.rdf Jeremy says:

  Note: RFC 2396 appears to permit implementations that discard 
        excess .. components, "compensating for obvious author 
        Such behaviour is not correct for RDF/XML.

Which if true, we (or Jeremy:) should explain in more detail in one
of our documents as to why we require this, rather than in a test

In test013.rdf Jeremy says:
   With an xml:base with fragment the fragment is ignored.
which I think also needs bringing out of a test case into documents.

These are all probably for the syntax doc for section in my draft

Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 05:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC