Re: Turtle implementation report for RDF::Trine

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

The test suite has one last change (HA) to move to it's "permanent home"
http://w3.org/2003/turtle-tests/ or something like that. That will also be
the base URL for all the tests as well. Otherwise we think everything is
stable. Will send out something once that is complete.

--Gavin


>
> thanks,
> .greg
>
>
>