W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Call for Consensus: IRI resolution tests

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:39:53 -0800
Cc: public-rdf-tests@w3.org, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Message-Id: <EBDFA953-53A5-4A9E-B1F8-E440B4EFB009@greggkellogg.net>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
A sufficient amount of time has passed for comments, Im merging the tests.

Thanks Ruben!

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:26 AM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Can we agree to include the following tests for IRI resolution?
> (https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/issues/6, https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/13)
>  1 (RFC3986 original cases)
>  2 (RFC3986 using base IRI with trailing slash)
>  7 (RFC3986 using base IRI with file path)
>  8 (miscellaneous cases)
> 
> The following cases were also proposed:
>  3 (RFC3986 using base IRI with /.)
>  4 (RFC3986 using base IRI with /..)
>  5 (RFC3986 using base IRI with trailing /.)
>  6 (RFC3986 using base IRI with trailing /..)
> I stand by these cases and several parsers agree.
> However, Andy expressed doubts about these cases.
> 
> The proposal would be to include 1, 2, 7, 8 already,
> and perhaps discusse more about 36 at a later time.
> 
> Please let us know if there are any objections to 1, 2, 7, 8
> (or perhaps arguments why 36 should also be included).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ruben
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:40:25 UTC