- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:15:01 +0100
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- CC: barstow@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: [...] > Well I was actually meaning that we *could* > have an error1.n3 file in the testcase suite > and that that file *could* contain no triples. I see what you mean. I think we decided to avoid trying to specify the behaviour of processors when they encounter incorrect RDF. I'd suggest that a process where we specify the triples which correct RDF/XML represents, and we have test cases which illustrate bad RDF/XML but don't specify what triples should be output for bad RDF is consistent with that. > The broader issue here is when you have a > "nesting" (to use Pat's new term) supposed > to contain triples and there is a > 'syntactic problem' then WHAT is going to be > in e.g. an engine's memory? > Craching is definitely out of question and > exception reporting/logging is obvious, but > what is the exception handling supposed to be. I suggest that is not the concern of this WG. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:16:40 UTC