> On Jun 29, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Wouter Beek <wouter@triply.cc> wrote: > > Hi Dan, others, > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >> It would be good to have some testcases annotated as being unchanged, >> previously-ok-now-illegal, previously-illegal-now-ok, etc. > > In addition to more test cases, it would also be nice if the status of > some of the existing test cases could be further clarified. For > example, the test case that checks for parser conformance in case > there are no whitespaces between the subject, predicate and object > term of an N-Triple was of type `rdft:Proposed', which means "a test > is proposed, but not approved.” RDF Tests are now managed at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests>. The test marked rdft:Approved were approved by the RDF WG, anything new that’s been added by the CG is marked rdft:Proposed, to be considered by some future WG, as has been the practice of the RDF Tests CG. We could, of course, break with this and have a CG vote to approve all proposed tests after some period of time. > The "proposed" status may be a reason why some state-of-the-art parser > do not pass this test. I’m not aware of processors that don’t parse these tests. I’m also not aware of any previously-ok-now-illegal tests based on our discussion. PRs are always welcome for newly proposed tests. Gregg > --- > Best regards, > Wouter Beek. > > Email: wouter@triply.cc > WWW: http://triply.cc > Tel: +31647674624 > >
Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 20:51:30 UTC