Re: Summary: Green Turtle Status - RDFa Test Suite

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:

> On May 22, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd love to submit an EARL with a 100% on all tests for all variants of
> XML, XHTML1, HTML4, XHTML5, and HTML5 but these 3 remaining tests cause me
> problems as I've detailed in previous e-mails.  I believe these are issues
> surrounding the test cases.
>
>
> Sorry Alex, I ment to get back to you today on these issues; I'll look
> into them more tomorrow.
>
> Note that we're really just looking for HTML5 reports, but it's good to
> have them all.
>

I'm trying to use the test suite directly without all the trickery I went
through last time.  So far, I have succeeded in that I'm using a simple
Jena-based service I build to test the outcomes.  It has worked well and I
found some tests that weren't necessarily included in the JSON-LD manifest
I was using previously.  As a result, I'll have an EARL for all the various
test categories (i.e. XML, XHTML1, HTML4, XHTML5, and HTML5).


>
> In summary:
>
> Test 0109 / XHTML1
>
> This cannot be enforced in XHTML1 as xml:base processing will have already
> happened during most, if not all, modern XML processing.  Test 0109 isn't
> listed in the tests for XHTML5 and I don't believe it should be required
> for XHTML1.
>
>
> For some reason, xml:base is _not_ used in XHTML1, but we did add it to
> XHTML5. If you're saying that the XHTML1 DOM model prevents this from being
> ignored, that's an interesting data point. Perhaps someone else has more
> perspective on why it must be ignored in XHTML1, and if tha is normative,
> or just the interpretation of a test; I don't think we can change any tests
> other than for HTML5 related specs at this point.
>

The point is that there is no such thing as an XHTML1 versus XHTML5 DOM.
 There is just an XML DOM used for XHTML and so XHTML1 and XHTML5 get
treated exactly the same.

It is perfectly valid for a working group to change the test suite over
time and most certainly has happened for other working groups.  I know
we've had to adjust the test suite for XProc after REC to correctly match
the specification or errata.

I don't think this WG should be in the business of enforcing XHTML rules
for processing the xml:base attribute.

Again, my opinion, but this test is impossible to pass for a browser-based
processor without doing things that would be considered "wrong" otherwise.
 That is, I could try to "undo" xml:base but I really feel that would cause
havoc for normal users who expected it to work because they put it into the
document.


>
> Test 0256 / HTML4 and HTML5
>
> The xml:lang attribute is not recognized in HTML syntax documents and so
> the test will never succeed without violating the HTML5 specification.  The
> xml:lang attribute is not mentioned in HTML4 [1].  This test should be
> removed for anything in HTML syntax.
>
>
> Note that there isn't an HTML5+RDFa spec, it's just been treated like
> HTML5+RDFa for most purposes, we could even just take it out of the test
> suite, but it is the only version of HTML that is a REC right now for which
> RDFa has any definition.
>
> I wonder if something changes here, as I recall that @xml:lang as a
> non-namespaces attribute was to be treated like @lang; perhaps this is the
> peril of working against a living spec.
>

In either HTML4 or the non-REC HTML5, xml:lang isn't recognized in HTML
syntax as the attribute we process.  I don't think anyone should expect
xml:lang to work in HTML syntax as there aren't namespaces and so neither
should RDFa.

IMHO, we should just remove this test as it just doesn't make sense.


>
> The manifests I'm using for these tests are:
>
> XHTML1: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/xhtml1/manifest.ttl
> HTML5: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/html5/manifest.ttl
> HTML4: http://rdfa.info/test-suite/rdfa1.1/html4/manifest.ttl
>
>
> What about XHTM5+RDFa? Do you intend to test that too?
>
>
>
All the tests for XHTML5 pass as the xml:lang attribute gets processed in
XML syntax.

Here's my current status:

HTML5    195 / 196  - 0256 does not pass
XHTML5  197 / 197
HTML4    167 / 169  - 0256 and 0303 do not pass
XHTML1  180 / 181  - 0109 does not pass
XML         125 / 125

If I can sort these last tests, I can submit an EARL for all variants at
100%.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics