- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:58:09 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > 4) The sq1ns.xml test is inconsistent with the pending projects.rdf => > projects.rdf test. Indeed; note "DanC now thinks this is wrong" in testlist1.html. > My code currently assumes a file > with root element in the RDF namespace can be read as RDF/XML. I will > extend this to be that a document served as application/rdf+xml can be > read as RDF/XML. If the WG is undecided about this issue, I am happpy > to wait, and I have no particular opinion one way or another about the > root element; (if the server serves application/rdf+xml then I will > feel free to apply an RDF/XML parser). Indeed, the WG is not yet decided on this issue, but I lean toward the assumption in your current code. I took an action in our 10 Jan discussion of #issue-mt-ns: "ACTION: DanC to write spec text for content negotiation use case. (Specifically recognizing RDF)" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/att-0014/ 10-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item11 I'll try to remember to let you know when I have some text. > I am not yet attempting the tests that require processing of a schema > or profile document ... tomorrow or friday maybe??? I look forward to it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 19:58:14 UTC