Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Include conformance criteria for Solid spec #282

Closed
csarven opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #478
Closed

Include conformance criteria for Solid spec #282

csarven opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #478

Comments

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jan 28, 2019

Outline conformance criteria as to what constitutes a "solid spec". Noting that where the "solid spec" inherits behaviours and expectations from other specs, we refer implementations to the test suites of those specs to check for conformance. For example, reusing the LDP Test Suite: https://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/ .. as opposed to the Solid Spec's Test Suite creating one from scratch.

While this issue may conceptually overlap in parts with "server tests": solid/solid-spec#112 , it focuses on the spec implementation.

@kjetilk
Copy link
Member

kjetilk commented Jan 28, 2019

Right, that's a good distinction to make.

@csarven csarven transferred this issue from solid/solid-spec Jul 11, 2021
@csarven csarven added this to the ~Proposed Recommendation milestone Jul 11, 2021
@csarven csarven self-assigned this Oct 19, 2022
@csarven csarven linked a pull request Nov 6, 2022 that will close this issue
@csarven csarven moved this from Todo to Blocked in <https://csarven.ca/#i> foaf:interest Nov 14, 2022
@csarven csarven moved this from Blocked to In Progress in <https://csarven.ca/#i> foaf:interest Nov 14, 2022
Repository owner moved this from In Progress to Done in <https://csarven.ca/#i> foaf:interest Nov 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants