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

Re: Turtle ResPec version

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 01:10:58 +0100
Message-ID: <52C8A312.7000204@vu.nl>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
CC: Sandro <sandro@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Eric, Gavin,

I've created a pubrules-compliant static version of Turtle [1].

For the moment I've commented the six tests in Sec. 7.1 out (see 
previous email) and added this as a change to the log. Let me know in 
case that's not OK.

I've also added a short custom paragraph to the SOTD section.

For other changes (mainly link error corrections) see the Mercurial log.



On 04-01-14 22:40, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> On 04-01-14 14:55, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> [2014-01-04 11:43+0100]
>>> On 03-01-14 23:26, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>> * Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> [2014-01-03 18:28+0100]
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2. Broken fragments for tests
>>>>> These links are not valid anymore in the new test setup. Remove?
>>>> Hmm, tricky to deal with the legacy of my mistake from years ago. The
>>>> CR doc linked to them and inappropriately referred to them as
>>>> tests. Because they weren't the official test suite, they served only
>>>> as examples. The directory is there in perpetuity and probably the
>>>> most honest thing to do is call them examples in the text  la:
>>>> s/(test: <a href="tests/#base1">base1</a> <a
>>>> href="tests/#base2">base2</a>)
>>>>   /(example: <a href="tests/#base1">base1</a> <a
>>>> href="tests/#base2">base2</a>)
>>>>   /
>>>> and change the http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/tests/ document to say:
>>>> [[
>>>> <h1>Turtle Examples</h1>
>>>> The following pairs of Turtle and N-Triples documents serve as
>>>> auxiliary examples to the Turtle specification. (Despite the directory
>>>> name, these are not official Turtle tests.)
>>>> <h2>Example Coverage</h2>
>>>> The following table associates example labels with the features those
>>>> examples are supposed to cover.
>>>> ]]
>>>> Shall I?
>>> This looks like a reasonable solution, assuming it is OK to touch
>>> this document in TR space.
>> Any future pulication would overwrite the directory for
>> /TR/turtle/tests so the act of publishing grants us that
>> permission. Updating them will obviate Gavin's action 281: "Provide
>> sandro text for http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/tests/ to NOT say it's the
>> test suite"
>>    <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/281>
>> I'm just trying to figure out the mechanics. Usually when I publish, I
>> copy all the appropriate files around. We don't have a tests directory
>> in the Mercurial repo so I can either revert the earlier deletion (or
>> however one does that in Mercurial), or, reply to this thread with a
>> copy of the new tests/Overview.html and drop it into place when we're
>> ready to publish. My preference is the latter as it involves less
>> negotiation with mercurial.
> I've reread the text in Sec.  7.1. On second thought, I don't see what
> these tests add.
> The textual explanation is crystal clear. Real tests for this should be
> in the test suite. I think it would be much easier and cleaner to just
> drop these tests from the main document

> Guus
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2014 00:11:35 UTC

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