W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Test results updated

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 06:53:31 +0100
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B8E18670-BAC4-4566-9A3C-A54C10DD309C@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>

> On 4 Nov 2016, at 18:09, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
> As per our discussions today, I got the PN input from Rob, split it into its 5 separate input files, then re-ran the tests for them.


> The results are in the repo at [1].  I note that all of their inputs are missing @context.  I wonder if it would be legit for us to add that into their input?  Perhaps it is implied in their environment?

Well… the model document does require the presence of @context as a MUST. From hindsight, I am not sure that was a wise decision; @context is necessary only if the goal is to use the annotation as part of an RDF based infrastructure. In other cases it is just noise. We will not change this now, but we have to recognize that probably many implementations out there will drop @context. However, the tests should reflect the spec, ie, we should leave it as is imho.

It may be worth adding a note in the final implementation report, though, calling this out.


> [1] https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html <https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html>--
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2016 05:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC