[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Tin Man Design Question 9 - to vote Jan. 9th?
Hi All: I will err on the side of simplicity and take the approach of not differentiating between standard output and standard error, I don't see any particular reason why not to do that. Any other takes? Carmelo ----- Original Message ----- From: <David_Marston@lotus.com> To: <xslt-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Tin Man Design Question 9 - to vote Jan. 9th? > Here is one of the issues identified in my message titled > "Test Case Markup & Cataloging, Tin Man edition" that I sent > to this list on 12/1/2000: > 9. Do we want to collapse standard output and standard error > together? > > DISCUSSION: > The spec doesn't seem to recognize where "console output" > goes. The "compare" attribute of the Scenario element can be > simpler if we don't recognize standard output and standard > error as distinct. Those representing the test-lab interests > should speak up if you think there is a need to keep the two > separate. If separate, the output comparison for messages > would insist on getting the required message through the > specified channel. > > This design assumes that we can devise a reasonable way to > deal with messages. I think that we can get at least part of > the way to reasonable. I can expound on that idea at the > meeting, if you wish. > > Ultimately, this would be a "lump or separate" vote. > .................David Marston > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC