- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:23:29 +0200
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46B83A11.4010104@w3.org>
Well, I did not really care about validation, to be honest. The XHTML part should be changed anyway, because the meta is still in the <body> part. For the sake of this mail, let me reproduce the core of the thing: [[[ <body> <span xml:base="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/"> <link about="" rel="dc:creator" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" /> <meta property="dc:title" content="Internet Applications" /> </span> </body> ]]] The sparql part says: [[[ ASK WHERE { ?x0 <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "Internet Applications" . <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator> <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> . } ]]] which seems to suggest that the value of ?x0 is still pending. pyRdfa returns: [[[ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#' xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' > <rdf:Description rdf:about="0004.xhtml"> <dc:title>Internet Applications</dc:title> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/"> <dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> ]]] which I claim _is_ correct (with the caveat that it refers to the file name for "" and not to the test URI). Ie, the value of ?x0 should be, in my view: <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004.xhtml> The test _is_ a bit tricky indeed: the <meta> inherits from its parent the @about value as a subject, but I do not believe that setting the xml:base should change the value of that inherited subject implicitly. That is why I believe that the result of pyRdfa is correct... Ivan Hausenblas, Michael wrote: > > Ivan, > > Not so sure about @xml:base. > > What I know is that we have TC 4 [1] on hold > because it does not validate due to @xml:base ?! > > Shane, any thoughts/explanations? > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004 > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Hausenblas, MSc. > Institute of Information Systems & Information Management > JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH > Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA > ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:59 PM >> To: Hausenblas, Michael >> Cc: W3C RDFa task force >> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-) >> >> One thing, though. >> >> I ran all my tests from my local machine. Ie, the RDF results >> were _not_ what the sparql requires because the base is the >> local file name and not the test file URI. It is of course >> easy to compare things visually. >> Well, that is what you would think: one of my bugs was to >> handle the relative URI-s properly and I realized the problem >> only in the second or third test:-) >> >> I wonder whether we should not add an xml:base in most of the >> tests (except those that explicitly test xml:base:-). >> >> >> Ivan >> >> Hausenblas, Michael wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org >>>> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan >>>> Herman >>>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:49 PM >>>> To: W3C RDFa task force >>>> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-) >>>> >>>> I have run the tests that are marked as 'approved' either >> explicitly >>>> under the heading >>>> >>>> "Review and Approval 2007-08-02" >>>> >>>> of http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC or in the series of >>>> mails of Ben at the end of last week. After some smallish >> bugs here >>>> and there that I had to handle:-(, this implementation >> passes all of these: >>>> 0001, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0018, >>>> 0029, 0030, 0031, 0032 >>>> >>>> :-) >>> Great! Thanks a lot for this information. >>> >>> We'll certainly gather your feedback (and hopefully the >> feedback of >>> other implementors) and publish it as a 'Implementor's Report' >>> - don't know the correct W3Cish term ... but something like this :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Michael Hausenblas, MSc. >>> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management >> JOANNEUM >>> RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH >>> >>> http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> -- >> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 09:23:33 UTC