non-RDF XML tests are run for all domain specs

[berezovskyi]

Here is the logic in question:

I think we should consider XML (non-RDF) tests to be part of OSLC 1 legacy and update the test suite builder logic accordingly.

[berezovskyi]

@jamsden could you please double-check? As far as I recall, domain specs at v2 don't add requirements that an OSLC Server supports application/xml type any differently than RDF/XML? Also, I am assuming that the "plain" XML type corresponds to an IBMish RDF/XML-ABBREV dialect?

[berezovskyi]

For now, I put all "plain" XML tests behind a flag: 1f331b3

[jamsden]

From the RM spec:

• RM Servers must support RDF/XML representations with media-type application/rdf+xml. RM Clients must be prepared to deal with any valid RDF/XML document.
• RM Servers must support XML representations with media-type application/xml. The XML representations must follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance to maintain compatibility with [OSLCCore2].
• RM Servers may support JSON representations with media-type application/json. The JSON representations must follow the guidelines outlined in the OSLC Core Representations Guidance to maintain compatibility with [OSLCCore2].

I don't know what "plain" XML type would mean. I think references to RDF/XML-ABBREV are explicit as DOORS Next generation expects that format for discovery resources.

[berezovskyi]

Thanks Jim. What's the difference between "RDF/XML representations" and "XML representations"? I was referring to the latter as "plain" XML.