Re: test cases needing review

At 05:55 PM 5/29/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>We need to get some of the outstanding test cases reviewed.  Please can 
>you take a look at

OK, I've been through all the outstanding cases - my comments are 
below.   I don't think that any are wrong, but I've raised comments in some 
-- I agree with the UTF-8 mapping ü --> %C3%BC
-- Does agreement on this transform depend on current IRI debates (I've 
lost track)?  If we are agreed to have all URIs in the graph use just 
URI-character-sequences then I think this is right.
-- Looks OK to me.
-- Looks OK to me, but I'm not sure what it's meant to demonstrate.
-- Did we agree xml"foo" as the form for XML literals in N-triples?  If so, 
it looks OK to me.
-- ditto regarding xml"chat"-fr
-- Looks OK to me.
-- ditto regarding "chat"-fr
-- Looks OK to me.
-- Interesting case (i.e. good test case!):  does xml:lang apply to 
attributes of the element to which it is applied?  XML says yes, but that 
means that the language applies to multiple RDF properties specified as 
attributes.  I think that's all OK.
-- I agree with this (rdf:aboutEach is now an error).  Does the group?
-- ditto
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.  (It would help if the test file contained its URL)
-- I agree with this.
-- Hmmm... I agree that it should be allowed as legal RDF, but is there a 
case for producing a warning is repeated rdf:_n properties are used?
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.  But don't these cases duplicate xmllang tests?  Does 
it matter?
-- I agree with this.  (I never noticed xml:space before!)
(Should there be additional test cases with multiple consecutive whitespace 
and leading/trailing whitespace with and without the xml:space='preserve' 
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this, but can't see what it's supposed to be testing.  Also 
there appears to be some filename confusion with the RDFS entailment tests.
-- I agree with this, and note there appears to be continuing filename 
-- I agree with this.
-- I agree with this.


Graham Klyne

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 11:34:13 UTC