- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:40:32 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-grddl-comments@w3.org, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Please, regard this comment as addressed. Jeremy Dan Connolly wrote: > 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 Friday, 19 January 2007 12:40:58 UTC