The XHTML+RDFa test suite has been updated to include a number of test cases that we've approved over the past 4 months (but I failed to mark as approved until just now). I vaguely recall us approving TCs 122, 123 and 126, but could not find a record of us doing so. Those test cases pass at least 3 implementations and there was nothing that jumped out at being invalid about those tests. However, if somebody else could check them out and make sure I didn't make a mistake, that would be great. There is a clear record of TCs 131, 134 and 140 being approved. We had said that TC 140 shouldn't generate the triple listed in the SPARQL, but I can't remember why now (and it wasn't minuted). TC140 has been published as a negative test, but Philip meant it to be a positive test. Why should TC 140 not generate the triple listed in the SPARQL? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 03:43:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC