Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

[Manu Sporny]

This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
1600 UTC.

The test cases can be found at the following URL:

http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/

For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"

Here is a template to follow when responding:

TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

[Mark Birbeck-4]

Hi Manu,

  TC142: approved
  TC147: approved
  TC154: approved, but with a small observation

My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
"xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
see if the document was well-formed.)

It's probably not an issue, since the character is definitely in the
correct range for a namespace prefix character. But the reason I'm
flagging it up, is that it's also not a straightforward problem with
my editor, because if I replace your character with another from
nearby in the Unicode tables, the document is seen as well-formed.

Like I say, I doubt it's a 'proper' problem, but I thought I'd mention
it, in case someone with more Unicode knowledge knows what's going on.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)



On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
> encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
> 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/
>
>

[Philip Taylor-5]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
> see if the document was well-formed.)

The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
likely to cause problems :-)

It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.

Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll consider
the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based on the
latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like intentional
references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain about that. So
this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

[Shane McCarron]

Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references
4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition.  
So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
>> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
>> see if the document was well-formed.)
>
> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
> likely to cause problems :-)
>
> It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
> well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.
>
> Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
> consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
> on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
> intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
> about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: [phone] x120
Managing Director                            Fax: [phone]
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@...

[Philip Taylor-5]

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references
> 4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
> refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition.  
> So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

Okay, sounds good - if the intent is that everyone should use the 4th
Edition instead, and it's made clear in the specs, then I'm happy with
that (and test case 154 will be invalid, or could be turned into a
negative test case of some kind).

Looking at the current normative references from RDFa:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 (Third Edition) as [XML-LANG].

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ which includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml dated 10 February 1998 (either First
Edition if you go by the date, or Fifth if you go by URL).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/ which includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 (Second Edition).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/ which
includes http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 (Fourth Edition)

So the normative reference chains lead to at least four out of five
editions in various ways, and I don't think it's currently clear that
any particular edition is blessed as being the one to use for RDFa
processors. That wasn't a problem until the 5th Edition came along and
redefined well-formedness, but it'd be nice to see the references tidied
up a bit now.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

[Shane McCarron]

I agree completely.  It is one of the reasons we are planning to update
all the XHTML family specs.  As to the xml-names reference in
RDFa-syntax.  That one's completely my fault.  I pasted in the wrong
thing and never checked it.  Pathetic, really.

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N
>> references 4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being
>> updated to refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust
>> 5th Edition.  So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.
>
> Okay, sounds good - if the intent is that everyone should use the 4th
> Edition instead, and it's made clear in the specs, then I'm happy with
> that (and test case 154 will be invalid, or could be turned into a
> negative test case of some kind).
>
> Looking at the current normative references from RDFa:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 (Third Edition) as [XML-LANG].
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ which includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml dated 10 February 1998 (either First
> Edition if you go by the date, or Fifth if you go by URL).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/ which includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 (Second Edition).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/ which
> includes http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 (Fourth Edition)
>
> So the normative reference chains lead to at least four out of five
> editions in various ways, and I don't think it's currently clear that
> any particular edition is blessed as being the one to use for RDFa
> processors. That wasn't a problem until the 5th Edition came along and
> redefined well-formedness, but it'd be nice to see the references
> tidied up a bit now.
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: [phone] x120
Managing Director                            Fax: [phone]
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@...

[Mark Birbeck-4]

Hi Philip,

> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
> likely to cause problems :-)

Damn...that's the second time I've been caught out by the fact that
you need to know a particular test is failing, rather than succeeding.

Ah well -- I now know more about Unicode than I did before.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

[Ivan Herman-2]

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references
> 4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
> refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition.
> So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.
>

Can you tell me why the xhtml group does not trust the 5th edition? Is
it all the extra unicode stuff?

Ivan

> Philip Taylor wrote:
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
>>> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
>>> see if the document was well-formed.)
>>
>> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
>> likely to cause problems :-)
>>
>> It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
>> well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.
>>
>> Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
>> consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
>> on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
>> intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
>> about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.
>>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Ivan Herman-2]

Manu Sporny wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
> encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
> 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

approved

> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.

(we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
test...)

(sigh, my implementation is wrong:-)


> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

I guess for the current version this means that this is a negative test,
though it may become a positive one if, in a new release, we move to xml
5th edition...

Ivan

>
> -- manu
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Philip Taylor-5]

Ivan Herman wrote:
>> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
> The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
> which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.
>
> (we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
> test...)

It's meant to be positive -
http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/xhtml-manifest.rdf says
expectedResults is true.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ says:

   "All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:
    * users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications
    * processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors."

So the test case XML document is violating the 'should', but XML
processors (and presumably RDFa processors) must treat it exactly like
any other normal prefix.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

[Ivan Herman-2]

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>>
>> I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
>> The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
>> which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.
>>
>> (we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
>> test...)
>
> It's meant to be positive -
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/xhtml-manifest.rdf says
> expectedResults is true.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ says:
>
>   "All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
> in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:
>    * users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications
>    * processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors."
>
> So the test case XML document is violating the 'should', but XML
> processors (and presumably RDFa processors) must treat it exactly like
> any other normal prefix.

Ah! True, you are right.

If we had some sort of a warning mechanism, a warning would therefore be
in order, but it is indeed not an error.

To be formal: yes, I approve the test.

Thanks Philip

Ivan

>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Shane McCarron]

Yes, it is the change to NMTOKEN.  We were unconfortable pushing a change to the scope of NMTOKEN onto all existing implementations - especially since we feared the change would not be supported in existing user agents and conforming processors.

Ivan Herman wrote:

Shane McCarron wrote:
  

Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references
4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition. 
So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

    

Can you tell me why the xhtml group does not trust the 5th edition? Is
it all the extra unicode stuff?

Ivan


  

Philip Taylor wrote:
    

Mark Birbeck wrote:
      

My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
"xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
see if the document was well-formed.)
        

The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
likely to cause problems :-)

It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.

Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.

      

[Manu Sporny]

TC142: approved
TC147: approved
TC154: tentatively approved pending discussion and erratum

TC154 will result in an XML parsing error. We have, to this point, never
approved a test case that generates an XML parsing error. Clearly, if
the document is not well-formed, we can't parse it reliably, and
therefore cannot produce a stable graph per the XHTML processing rules.

So, if we are going to approve this test case, we're going to have to
make a decision on what kind of RDF graph should be produced when there
is a parsing error. We could do one of the following:

1. A blank RDF graph (a graph with no subjects) is produced.
2. An RDF graph is produced, but that graph not undefined.
3. The RDF graph that is produced contains all of the triples leading
   up to the parsing error.

#1 is not very useful because one may not want to throw the entire graph
away because of a parsing error at the end of a document. We'd certainly
take issue with this approach as there are many pages that Fuzz
partially parses, but fails due to some XHTML parsing issue at the end
of a document. We can still act on most of the triples in the page, so
#1 would move us in the wrong direction, IMHO.

#3 is easy for SAX-based parsers to accomplish, but not for parsers that
may require a valid XHTML document before creating a DOM of some kind.

#2 blends the best of #1 and #3 - it allows RDFa processors to generate
as many triples as they can before failing, but doesn't require
stream-based processing of the XHTML document. The down-side is that
behavior isn't defined, other than that the RDFa processor should
generate a graph.

So, if we do approve this TC154, it should be a negative test and the
SPARQL should provide further documentation that is a negative test.

Even if we don't approve TC154, we should generate an erratum clarifying
that XHTML+RDFa depends on XML 4th edition.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

[Steven Pemberton-3]

I approve 142.

With 154 I see different characters in the XHTML and (RDF and N3), even  
though the page is delivered as UTF8, so I am confused.

I've forgotten how negative tests work, especially in the presence of  
errors. If it does it wrong, how do we know? Especially since the test  
doesn't even contain the character in question (because it can't).

With 147: should it fail or not? I can't decide.

Steven

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:35:05 +0100, Manu Sporny  
<msporny@...> wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
> encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
> 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> -- manu
>

[Gregg Kellogg]

TC142: needs discussion
TC147: approved
TC154: approved

I'm not getting a namespace for xml out of LibXML, perhaps there's some discussion on techniques for this that I've missed.

Gregg

On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
> encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
> 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/
>