- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:24:37 +0100
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 10:25:04 UTC
Philip Taylor wrote: > Ivan Herman wrote: >>> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion >> >> I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test. >> The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)" >> which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve. >> >> (we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html >> test...) > > It's meant to be positive - > http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/xhtml-manifest.rdf says > expectedResults is true. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ says: > > "All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, > in any case combination, are reserved. This means that: > * users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications > * processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors." > > So the test case XML document is violating the 'should', but XML > processors (and presumably RDFa processors) must treat it exactly like > any other normal prefix. Ah! True, you are right. If we had some sort of a warning mechanism, a warning would therefore be in order, but it is indeed not an error. To be formal: yes, I approve the test. Thanks Philip Ivan > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 10:25:04 UTC