Re: RDFa2RDFXML.xsl in test dir

I just had checked in Fabien's new RDFa2RDFXML.xsl file as per his
wishes in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0164.html

in particular, this file:

http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/soft/RDFa2RDFXML_v_0_7.xsl

was checked in over RDFa2RDFXML.xsl.

The reason it was checked in was that XSL is also used was as part of the primer, and while we did not have time to get to releasing the Primer as a note, I wanted it to be as updated as possible for our telecon. 

If there were *errors* in the file, they may be back if we reupgrade the file.




So if there's any syntax errors in that file then it should, well, be back.

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>
> I have reverted this file to version 1.4, undoing harry's update today.
>
> Rationale:
> a) the updated file had syntax errors.
> b) this file forms part of a test approved on 11th April, and so
> should not be changed ...
>
> But the revision history shows the following changes:
>
> 1.3 19th April jcarroll Fabien's RDFa test
> 1.4 20th April jcarroll patching tests
> 1.5 25th April hhalpin  updated as regards Fabien's wishes
> 1.6 25th April jcarroll reverting to 1.4
>
> The differences between 1.3 and 1.2 (which was part of the approved
> test) is that the mimetype for the output used to be text/plain
> and in 1.3 is applatioun/rdf+xml  (or similar typo)
> in 1.4 the difference with the approved 1.2 is that the mimetype is
> application/rdf+xml
>
> I suggest we avoid changing this file in the future.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 18:24:04 UTC