Re: Suggested test case 0124

Mark, Shane,

> I don't think your test tests the same set of conditions that Shane
> and myself were discussing.

Fair enough. My bad, however hard for me to tell as I was certainly not
present ;)

Still I'd like to keep the TC clean and simple as possible. Can we separate
this out and put this into another TC125? If yes, how would it look like? If
not, I'd suggest to clarify that during the review of the TC during the
telecon ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html
http://webofdata.wordpress.com/


> From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:04:32 +0100
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, RDFa TF list
> <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Suggested test case 0124
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I don't think your test tests the same set of conditions that Shane
> and myself were discussing.
> 
> The discussion Shane and I were having related to how recursion works
> when parsing a non-XML literal datatype, and so one of the tests in
> Shane's proposal checks that the parser does indeed recurse and pick
> up any nested properties. (That's the one you've retained.)
> 
> However, the other of Shane's tests checks that when you have nested
> properties like this, they don't get processed if they are inside an
> XML literal.
> 
> That's the one you've removed, in favour of TC11. The problem is that
> TC11 only checks that an XML literal 'in general' is created -- it
> doesn't check that nested RDFa properties are _not_ processed, which
> is what we want.
> 
> Of course, TC124 only checks that the XML literal is created as well,
> so as proposed it's not much different to TC11, and I can see why
> you've removed it.
> 
> But I would suggest that TC124 should also be testing that the triples
> inside the XML literal are *not* generated -- i.e., that there is no
> recursion -- and that would then differentiate it from TC11.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Michael Hausenblas
> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Shane,
>> 
>> I've added TC124 now [1] with the following changes:
>> 
>>  + removed @id to avoid semantic issues (see also [2]) and
>>  + removed second block (sorry Mark ;) as this is already covered in TC11
>> [3]. Please note that we've agreed to keep the single TC as simple as
>> possible and test only one feature at a time.
>> 
>> Let me know if you're not happy with my changes
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>      Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0124
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009May/0003.html
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0011
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
>> Galway, Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>> http://webofdata.wordpress.com/
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:21:47 -0500
>>> To: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Suggested test case 0124
>>> Resent-From: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:22:29 +0000
>>> 
>>> embedded elements get processed after a
>>> surrounding element is tagged with datatype ""
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
> 
> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
> 
> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
> 
> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
> London, EC2A 4RR)

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 11:18:43 UTC