- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:06:38 -0800
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
The following are issues found in checking links and pub rules for RDF11-TESTCASES [1] * Previous version link not found - A previous version is not required for WG Notes * Document identifier information order - Previous version not required * XML namespaces - http://www.w3.org/ns/rdftest# not found. Perhaps we should create such a namespace document; it's used from tests and implementation reports too. The others will be created when the note is published. Link checker: All references to EARL reports, which I suppose Sandro needs to put in place: * http://www.w3.org/2013/rdf-mt-reports/index.html * http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsReports/index.html * http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesReports/index.html * http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigReports/index.html * http://www.w3.org/2013/RDFXMLTests/ CSAIL - http://www.csail.mit.edu/ timeout seems to load okay by hand Other than the rdftest namespace document and putting the implementation reports in place, I think we're good to go in publishing the note. Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote: > > > On 12-02-14 22:12, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> The document is updated, and I saved a draft to <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/rdf11-testcases/Overview.html>. >> >> The PubRules checker finds issues, but it seems reasonable to me: >> >> * Markup saved as HTML5, which I believe is okay, but this generates an error. >> * Want's style sheet be be W3C-WD, but it's W3C-NOTE. >> * Want's status to have W3C Working Draft, but has W3C Note. >> * No Previous Version link. >> * ... >> >> There are more. I'm not sure that notes need to pass pubrules; let me know if there's something that needs to be done for this to pass cleanly. > > Notes do need to pass pubrules. I edited the ReSpec attributes a bit and removed the "Prtevious version" link manually from the static version [1], and now it passes pubrules (well, there is a HTML error). > > The inclusion of a "Previous version" looks like a ReSpec bug. I'll let them know. > > Guus > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/REC-drafts/NOTE-rdf11-testcases-20140225/Overview.html > > > > >> >> Gregg Kellogg >> gregg@greggkellogg.net >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 21:07:09 UTC