- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:27:04 +0000
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 26/02/13 21:13, David Robillard wrote: > The Turtle test suite situation is currently a bit of a mess. There's > the tests-ttl suite, the coverage suite, the old test suite from the > team submission [1], and some additions scattered about various > implementations. Each of these needs to be run in subtly different > ways. Could you say more? (I run them all the same way) >There is also serious areas of the new spec that are not covered > at present, and various miscellaneous trivial issues. > > I would like to volunteer to merge the three suites, fix the issues, and > add new tests to cover the missing areas, if it is agreed that merging > them is appropriate (I think a single consistent test suite with good > coverage is at least highly desirable, and probably should be considered > a requirement for standardization) > > In order to do this, the licensing issues of test-ttl/manifest.ttl > brought up by Dave Beckett [2] will need to be resolved,and perhaps > test-ttl/LICENSE is a problem as well. Otherwise I see no barriers (and > licensing problems for things like this is silly, really) The LICENSE file is the W3C Software License. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 what's the problem with that? (note that the conformance test suite should be the W3C test suite license which has different provisions) > > Other than that, I will just wait for some confirmation that a > unified/improved/extended test suite is desired before building it. It > shouldn't be too much work (I have done some of it already) or take > long, but if upstream won't follow suit I will not merge them since the > divergence would make pulling a diff impossible. > > Thanks, > > -dr > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/tests/ > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Feb/0029.html >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 21:27:35 UTC