Re: more struggles with POWDER test matierals

Removing TAG list for now, will reply to that list in due course.
Adding Dan Bri 'cos he was asking similar questions.


There's been an update to the doc since your original comment. I believe 
you'll find that all the documents cited in the manifest files are 
correctly addresses but we'll double check them.

When preparing to send the PR transition request last week I found, 
somewhat to my horror, that the schemas I had believed to be in place 
weren't - that has now been corrected, complete with GRDDL links i.e. 
this was done after your TAG meeting.

The XSLTs [1,2] have been tested extensively (most of the GRDDL tests in 
the Test Suite are actually the output of the XSLTs) so we have no 
worries there. However, testing whether this works in an off-the shelf 
GRDDL tool is a little harder.

The example you chose was [3]. Put that into the W3C GRDDL service [4] 
and you get this error:

Failed to parse stylesheet in 
'' at line 1, column 
-1 in

Now... that means that the service is locating the correct XSLT - good. 
And we know that the XSLT works 'cos we've tested it till the cows come 
home [5]. So it isn't clear to me that this is a POWDER problem.

If you have an alternative GRDDL app available, I'd be grateful if you'd 
run that and see what you get. If there is a problem then, of course, we 
want to fix it. NB: there's a LOT of complexity here:

The namespace resolves to which is the file that includes 
the data-view:transformation link to

But, the schema imports others, notably the POWDER-BASE schema which in turn includes a 
data-view transform link to the second XSLT 
( since POWDER to 
POWDER-S is a two-stage process.

Any advice you can offer would be most welcome.




Dan Connolly wrote:
> In our 23 apr meeting*, the TAG reviewed my comment about
> the testcases not working:
>   powder-test/grddl/powder002.xml is 404?
> and decided to endorse it. It's hard for us to review POWDER
> with the test materials in their present state.
> Is there some way of using the test materials in their present
> state that we're just not aware of? Or are they actually broken
> and in need of a fix?
> * minutes pending; draft in member space:
> p.s. tracker, this is re ACTION-262


Phil Archer

i-sieve technologies                |      W3C Mobile Web Initiative
Making Sense of the Buzz            |

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 13:48:17 UTC