Re: Draft Agenda for November Meeting: 2000-11-13 19:40-21:00PDT

[David_Marston@lotus.com]

I think the agenda item about output comparison should be broadened to
cover all output types (XML, HTML, text) and to incorporate Kirill's
point. Scott Boag has also questioned whether Canonical XML alone will
suffice for the XML comparisons.

If we make good progress on the review of discretionary items, we
should discuss which languages (en-US for one) might be itemized
specifically for the language-dependency questions. That is, the
open-ended questions about languages or encodings could be
replaced with boolean questions about some languages/encodings that
collectively allow good exercising of the feature:
"What languages can you sort?" is replaced by
"Can you sort en-US?"
"Can you sort lt-LT?"
"Can you sort el-GR?" etc.

I'm told that the Transformiix project keeps their test cases in
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/extensions/transformiix/source/examples/


As a preview to the Tin Man edition of test case markup, and in
anticipation of the design work for "XML report and exclusion
instance", consider the following as the way to represent, in the
catalog, that a test case relies on one or more discretionary items:
<Discretionary>
   <item-name>string</item-name>   [could have multiple occurrences]
</Discretionary>
So each affected item is represented as a sub-element whose name is
the name of the item (e.g., signal-unresolved-template-rule-conflict)
and whose content is a text string ("error" or "choose-last" in this
case). The <Discretionary> element occurs zero or one time as a
child of the <TestCase> element, and it has one or more children
if it occurs. JR will take the lead in "DTDifying" this and the rest
of the design, and he or other committee members may want to change
to an attribute-oriented scheme. At this stage, we need Tony and
anyone who might run the tests to advise whether element or
attribute orientation makes a difference in how test cases are
excluded.
.................David Marston