- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:02:28 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 17 May 2012 13:41:23 +0200 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Very strictly speaking this is a test of the SVG spec together with > RDFa, but I agree the test should be added. Indeed - which is why I wasn't sure if it should be classified as required. > I have added it to github, except that I added as 0304 (and not > 0310), because that was the next in line. OK. I jumped numbers just in case anybody else was working on tests 304, 305, etc in parallel with me. > Oh, and I do not pass this test yet:-) Yes, I tested both versions of the RDFa distiller and was surprised to find that they did not. Is it the fact that the namespaces and xml:base are defined outside the <rdf:RDF> element that trips you up? I just threw that little wrinkle in because I'm evil. RDF::RDFa::Parser has been passing this one since version 0.22 in December 2009. :-) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:00:50 UTC