- From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:25:15 -0600
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJdbnOAq5+xHbCyyjtSgBpH9imuY9W=9SXq5WSr=xZs=9mDLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Okay. Thanks Ivan! On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > 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. > > > Thanks! > > 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. > > Ivan > > > > [1] 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 > > > > > -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2016 20:26:15 UTC