RE: comments on RDFa Test Cases

Ben,

Thank you very much for your detailed comments
and your meticulousness ;)

We'll certainly address all of the issues and
prepare the TS to be ready for review by next week.

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: RDFa
> Subject: comments on RDFa Test Cases
> 
> 
> 
> Michael, Wing,
> 
> Great work on the test cases. Here are some comments on each 
> one. I'm looking at: 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/testcases/
> 
> The biggest issue to address, in my opinion, is "META and 
> LINK" in the body. If we want to test these, we *have* to 
> produce these tests with extension .xhtml and with mime type 
> application/xhtml+xml, and then IE may complain loudly. I 
> would suggest having a bunch of straight text/html tests 
> *without* META and LINK in the body, and then a few
> xhtml+xml ones *with* META and LINK in the body.
> 
> I also note some bug in your SPARQL in the latter examples... 
> using .ttl instead of .htm as the subject. Easy to fix :)
> 
> Great work!
> 
> -Ben
> 
> ================
> 
> (Note that I don't see #1,9,18)
> 
> 
> #2
> Let's use standard HTML: put a HEAD in there.
> 
> #3 and #4 and #5
> use of META and LINK in the BODY... This is going to be 
> problematic. You should deliver these files using the 
> xhtml+xml mime type, otherwise the DOM is manipulated by most 
> browsers (and Tidy). We should probably mention this for all 
> the test cases that use META and LINK in the body.
> 
> I would recommend staying away from META and LINK in the BODY 
> for the first few test cases, leaving those to special test 
> cases. That's a big part of the latest Primer: not requiring 
> META and LINK in the body.
> 
> #6
> Ahah, CURIEs. You are jumping right into the more 
> controversial test cases :) How about one that doesn't use a 
> CURIE first?
> 
> #7
> Great.
> 
> #8
> Great.
> 
> #10
> I don't see the SPARQL for this one, but otherwise good.
> 
> #11, #12
> LINK in the BODY again. Since there's no rendered content 
> here, you could make this into a test for the LINK in the 
> HEAD, as per Bob DuCharme's use case. Also, I'm not sure FOAF 
> folks would like you saying that one MAILTO knows another 
> MAILTO. A foaf:Person with mailto knowing another foaf:Person, yes.
> 
> #13
> Hmmm, I don't like this one. You've got rendered content in 
> the HEAD, which is not super kosher. Also, you use about="" 
> on the HEAD, which is not supposed to be necessary. What's 
> the point of this test?
> 
> #14, #15
> Good, good way to show META in the HEAD and the use of xml:lang.
> Is there a bug in the SPARQL with that extra ">"?
> 
> #16
> Great.
> 
> #17, 18, 19, 20
> LINK and META in the BODY again.
> 
> 
> (numbers skip to 101)
> 
> #101
> Great.
> 
> #102
> Nice, good first test of striping.
> 
> #103
> Great.
> 
> #104
> SPARQL is wrong, it expects a subject of .ttl instead of .htm
> 
> #105
> META in the body. Same problem with SPARQL subject of .ttl 
> instead of .htm
> 
> #106
> Great. SPARQL bug, .ttl instead of .htm
> 
> #107
> Great. .ttl bug.
> 
> #108
> Oh, very nice striping test. .ttl bug.
> 
> #109
> Good, seems repetitive with earlier tests.
> 
> #110
> Good, a bit repetitive, too, though less so (use of CONTENT)
> 
> #111
> We didn't really define what HREF on DIV would do (except in 
> XHTML2), so I'm not sure this is a good test case. What are 
> you trying to test here?
> 
> #112
> Same ">" in the SPARQL... maybe I don't know SPARQL and this 
> is the right syntax?
> 
> #113
> Interesting, technically, the spaces around "Mark Birbeck" 
> should be part of the object literal here, no?
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:15:11 UTC