W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2014

Re: RDF/XML Tests and new XMLLiteral tests

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:18:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPqY83yqUDNJn2eb4R7pMAsSjDmyeCBHoSG5cod5viCdG9HYeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


Is not well formed XML. ex is never defined. I am therefor worried about
anything that is currently claiming to pass (or even run) these tests.
Also, equivalence for testing would require comparing by value and not by
lexical value which requires http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#dom-node-isequalnode it
seems likely this is going to be very hard to test. Some clear guidance
from implementers on what they are planning to do would be helpful. For
example how is MarkLogic dealing with XML and HTML literals? Given they
already have an XPath 3 implementation.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:

> On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2013 12:50 AM, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> >
> > I moved over the 2004 RDF/XML tests [1] using the new manifest
> vocabulary, and added some extra XMLLiteral tests. The results are based on
> my implementation, and could be off compared to the new language for
> generating XMLLiterals, so I'd appreciate a second look.
> When we moved to the DOM serialize method, I looked hard at the definition
> to see how it differed from c14n. The definition for serialize relies on
> XQuery and XSLT semantics. Is there a mortal-facing definition or example
> algorithm which you used to see what those literals should look like?
> No, I presumed that the results must effectively be compatible with 2004
> spec using c14n. I know of no implementations available to me of the new
> XQuery and XSLT. Even if the results are off, these should be good test
> cases. I'm happy to tweet the results to suit the actual results,
> IMO, and solution must preserve namespaces and language and not mess up
> included definitions. I presume that the definitions don't need to be
> minimal (I.e., only limited to those actually used in the fragment). This
> leaves expansion of self-closing elements, which is entirely speculative.
> I'll look through the relevant specs further myself; perhaps they have
> their own test suite?
> Gregg
> > Of course, there's always room for more tests.
> >
> > Note that the tests reference a home directory of <
> http://www.w3.org/2013/RDFXMLTests/>, which must be set up. and a Wiki
> page <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDFXML_Test_Suite> which has not
> yet been created.
> >
> > Gregg Kellogg
> > gregg@greggkellogg.net
> >
> > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/tests
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 21:19:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC