- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:18 +0100
- To: ogbujic@ccf.org
- CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Then, I propose approving these four tests. Jeremy Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 18:31 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>>> #loopx >>> one pass, one n/a >>>> #loopx1 >>> one pass, one n/a >>>> #loopx2 >>> one fail (should be n/a), one pass >>>> #loopx3 >>> one fail (should be n/a), one n/a. >>> >> I think that is enough evidence. The tests are alternatives, with >> #loopx3 being the 'true' but too difficult compute answer. >> >> The GRDDL.py results should be n/a because it passes the first two. >> >> Any thoughts? > > Yes, GRDDL.py's EARL output *should* be N/A's for those but isn't now > primarily because aboutTest.xsl doesn't compute an indication that > non-maximal results (for tests with multiple output) are 'alternatives' > to each other. Also testft.py is currently driven primarily by these > indications. But yes, the language of the text in these tests suggests > (strongly) that this is 'passed' by at least two implementations: > > [[[ > ..In particular, this interpretation and the text in the section that > follows (8. Security considerations) permits an implementation to only > pass the first test due to security restrictions against computing > recursive GRDDL results. > ]]] > > -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 18:43:54 UTC