- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:57:25 +0900
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Apr 18, 2013, at 1:07 AM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > We discussed this issue today: > https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-04-17#line0105 Thanks, Dave. Seems more discussion is required, but I wanted to briefly comment on something Ivan said in the minutes: >> Ivan Herman: What Sandro said is what I meant -- we expected this comment earlier ← >> ... we got no comment on @previx vs. PREFIX ← I understand this came rather late in the process. I didn't notice this issue when I reviewed the LC document, and that was my fault. It came up as an issue for me into the CR period as a result of seeing the Turtle test suite (which I believe, though could be mistaken about, wasn't available in any form at the time of LC). Having explicit negative syntax tests about these grammar rules is what really brought this to my attention, and is what caused me to send my comment. On a related note, is the turtle test suite stable at this point? Its wiki page hasn't been updated since March 12th, but I believe things have been moving around in hg since then. Is there somewhere other than the wiki page that I should be looking at for status updates regarding the test suite and implementation reporting? thanks, .greg
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 00:57:49 UTC