- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:55:18 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
>>>Jos De_Roo said:
>
> Brian said:
> > DaveB, Jos, please can you include this in your review, so we can clear
> > this off this week.
>
> glad to do that
> can agree with all cases at
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/
Summary: I agree to all the tests:
test001-test016.{rdf,nt}
I don't think I can agree to:
error001.rdf
I renamed error001.rdf => test017.rdf as Jeremy asked in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0167.html
then renamed it back as per:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0206.html
I don't think error.rdf is an error in the right way - but I really
didn't want to writing test cases for the URI spec RFC2396! Can some
URI expert tell me if
(non-hierarchical) base URI: mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com
resolved with relative URI: relfile
gives
resulting URI: mailto:relfile
or
mailto:/relfile
and is this important for us to test?
Alternative proposal: delete this
In test012.rdf Jeremy says:
Note: RFC 2396 appears to permit implementations that discard
excess .. components, "compensating for obvious author
errors".
Such behaviour is not correct for RDF/XML.
Which if true, we (or Jeremy:) should explain in more detail in one
of our documents as to why we require this, rather than in a test
case.
In test013.rdf Jeremy says:
With an xml:base with fragment the fragment is ignored.
which I think also needs bringing out of a test case into documents.
These are all probably for the syntax doc for section in my draft
http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Identifiers
Dave
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 05:55:20 UTC