Re: valueTesting followup action (AndyS)

Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:24:39 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>[[While I was in the area, I also fixed test str-4 because it assumed 
>>=> "" which is at odds with rq23]]
> This test was not approved, but I seem to remember it being discussed in a
> telecon or face to face, was it something we voted on, or only a straw
> poll?

On #dawg?

> It's quite a significant change, and I would prefer to discuss it.

Lucky I looked at it then because the text and the test seem to be different :-)

What are your thoughts on it?

At the moment, I see more logic to the design of str([]) => error than str([]) 
=> "" because the latter might create an expection that the bNode label be 
returned, not the empty string.

That said, I have implemented both ways round (I had to make the change to 
making it an error when I went back and checked my implementation against the 
latest text because I found ARQ was doing the wrong thing spec-wise).


> - Steve

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 10:16:24 UTC