- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:42:11 -0500
- To: Wing C Yung <wingyung@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
- Message-ID: <45ECFF33.2010702@w3.org>
Wing C Yung wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote on 03/05/2007 08:03:12 PM: > >> Again, all of this infrastructure stuff is well and good, I guess, but >> what I want most is a handful of fairly complete tests; preferably >> tests based on examples that are being advertised widely, e.g. >> those in the primer. >> > > We are working towards assembling a full test suite. I took the tests > assembled by Elias several months ago and reduced the redudancy of the > tests. Then I added some additional tests to test parts of the syntax > document [1] that weren't covered so that nearly every section has at least > one test. I'm sure that some cases are missing, but it is a start. This is > why Michael and I would appreciate some help in looking over the tests. > I'm happy to take a look at a few test cases. Starting from http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/testcases/ I find a repository http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/ and the first input document in there is http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/testcases/000002.htm It bears a DTD but it's not valid. I still don't see any point in that. I understand some sort of module is in progress; is there an open issue on that? At least the MIME type isn't text/plain any more. I get the impression that some javascript/DOM things only work with application/xhtml+xml ; I think that's worth tracking as an issue. This test case says that at least some RDFa documents work with text/html; that seems worth adding to the RDFa requirements document, for review by the HTML WG. I'm still concerned that there's no follow-your-nose path from the document to the RDFa spec. Is there an open issue on that? The current issues list seems to be http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2 ; I don't see this issue there. This seemed to be acknowledged as an open issue last August http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Aug/0025 Maybe it was addressed and I missed it. Even so, it seems worth adding to the issues list post-hoc. > I did not take tests from the Primer [2] or the examples section (section > 6) of the syntax document because they tend to be longer and test multiple > aspects of the syntax document. My original aim was to have each test test > a single behavior specified by the syntax document. Is this not the correct > way to assemble the test suite? > It's a reasonable way. It's not the only correct way. I suggest that the examples that are being used to teach people about RDFa should get the sort of scrutiny that comes from including them in the test suite. But as I said earlier, there are many reasonable paths to good test coverage. > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/ > > Wing > p.s. please excuse any odd formatting in this message. I'm new to Thunderbird; I'd like it to just send plain text, but I can't always get it to do that. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 05:42:12 UTC