W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:24:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4AF3F965.7000403@w3.org>
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

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 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC