- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:54:39 -0600
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 16:28 +0000, Ian Davis wrote: > I'm ok with this response but as an implementor I of course would like > to have the tests kept current. I'm adding a [test-todo] to this and a few other threads where we've queued CR work. > I'll continue to keep notes on erroneous > tests that I find and I'll probably fix those that I'm confident about - > I'll make those available for use by the WG if they wish. Sounds great! > Ian > > On 25/01/2006 15:05, Dan Connolly wrote: > > [...] > >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/simple2/dawg-tp-04.rq > > [...] > >> Is my interpretation of the grammar correct and should these tests be > >> updated? > > > > Yes. > > > > Thanks for pointing out this problem with the test materials. > > > > The spec itself is in last call, where the WG has a rather > > formal obligation to address all comments. > > > > We'll eventually get around to cleaning up the test materials... > > the WG has been discussing it... > > > > [[ > > those are the only ones (4 IIRC) I'm aware of that have become erroneous > > due to syntax changes in the spec. > > ]] > > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0142.html > > > > ... meanwhile, I hope this is a satisfactory response regarding the > > spec itself. > > > > Please let us know whether it is. > > > > If you're satisfied, you can put [closed] in the subject > > of your reply to save us a bit of bookkeeping. > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 15:54:54 UTC