Re: additional test needed

Shane McCarron wrote:
> +1
> 
> And glad it helped find a bug.  I have identified a bunch of other edge 
> conditions like this we could create tests for.  I will try to write 
> them up.
> 

That would be great. The more the merrier!:-)

Ivan

> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Ivan,
>> Thanks for submitting these new TC! I've now a added them as TC92-TC94;
>> as usual to be found at [1].
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Michael
>>
>> [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
>>    http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>  
>>
>>  
>>> -----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 
>>> (example.org) 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:-)
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>     
> 

-- 

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