You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The N-Triples 1.1 test manifest file uses rdft:approval for a number of tests, but many have no approval data. For the ones that do, there are 2 rdft:Approved and 20 rdft:Proposed. It seem based on the tests in https://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/manifest.ttl that this situation has existed since the 1.1 standard (and the related implementation report includes data for the proposed tests).
Is there a known reason for the Proposed tests? I assume that anything marked approved or with no approval data was implicitly approved by the 1.1 WG and should be marked approved and given some dawgt:approvedBy data referencing the spec's moving to REC…?
I would guess that the "Proposed" tests are also mean to be approved? If there are concerns about simply marking them as such, maybe we can get the WG to take a quick look and bless the bulk approval of them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Probably should go in the rdf-tests repo. All the tests in the 1.1 directory should be considered approved, although there may be no corresponding WG approval. In the 1.2 directory, we haven’t taken any approval action. I would think that at some point we can make a resolution that all such tests are approved and some policy for approving tests that come in after that. Generally, we need some approval to merge, and that is probably adequate going forward.
The N-Triples 1.1 test manifest file uses
rdft:approval
for a number of tests, but many have no approval data. For the ones that do, there are 2rdft:Approved
and 20rdft:Proposed
. It seem based on the tests in https://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/manifest.ttl that this situation has existed since the 1.1 standard (and the related implementation report includes data for the proposed tests).Is there a known reason for the Proposed tests? I assume that anything marked approved or with no approval data was implicitly approved by the 1.1 WG and should be marked approved and given some
dawgt:approvedBy
data referencing the spec's moving to REC…?I would guess that the "Proposed" tests are also mean to be approved? If there are concerns about simply marking them as such, maybe we can get the WG to take a quick look and bless the bulk approval of them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: