W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

RE: additional test needed

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:25:57 +0100
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D298520157BD47@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Thanks for submitting these new TC! I've now a added them as TC92-TC94;
as usual to be found at [1].


[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/

 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----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, March 03, 2008 3:01 PM
>To: Shane McCarron
>Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org
>Subject: Re: additional test needed
>Shane (et al)
>I have attached 3 additional tests along the line of what Shane says. 
>They are all variants of #11:
>- 1.xhtml: specified an explicit xml:XMLLiteral datatype (the result 
>should be the same as #11)
>- 2.xhml: changing 1.xhtml and using a different namespace 
>instead of the rdf one for the XMLLiteral, result should be a 
>plain literal
>- 3.xhtml: the same as 1.xhtml, but using an unusual prefix 
>(instead of 
>'rdf'). Th result should be the same as 1.xhtml.
>And... the first test did catch a bug in my implementation!:-) Ie, the 
>test _does_ make sense:-)
>Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I actually didn't realize test 11 exercised the funcitonality un til 
>> Manu pointed it out (privately).  However, yes - since there 
>is explicit 
>> text about dealing with XMLLiteral as a specified datatype, 
>I think a 
>> copy of test 11 that did that might be good.  Might I suggest that 
>> instead of using the prefix "rdf" we use something else?  
>That way if an 
>> implementation mistakenly is testing for the literal 
>"rdf:XMLLiteral" it 
>> would fail the test.
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> I am not sure what you want to test. We do have test #11 to 
>see if the 
>>> generated literal is indeed xml literal.
>>> Maybe the only additional variant of this test could be when the 
>>> datatype is explicitly set to XMLLiteral (instead of relying on the 
>>> @datatype="" and the recognition that the children do 
>indeed include 
>>> xml tags, which is test #11). Ie, Test #11 seems to be 
>*more* than the 
>>> basic XML Literal generation.
>>> Shane, is this what you were referring to, or was there 
>more that you 
>>> thought of?
>>> Ivan
>>> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>> Looking through the current tests I dont see any that exercise the 
>>>> RDF datatype XMLLiteral - we probably need some?
>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 Monday, 3 March 2008 15:27:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:55 UTC