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

Re: Test results updated

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:25:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOAq5+xHbCyyjtSgBpH9imuY9W=9SXq5WSr=xZs=9mDLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
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

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