Re: Test suite for RELAX NG DTD compatibility spec.

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

>> Allowing resources both in <testCase>s and in <testSuite>s would make
>> things rather complicated.
>
> Umm, then I'd rather propose to pull out <resource> on the ground that
>
> 1. use of resources involves use of <externalRef>s and <include>s; it is
>    hard to write a generic (processor-dependent) test framework that
>    properly resolves those resources for the processor.

I don't think it's any harder than if you made the test suite be a 
collection of files. You can split up the test suite into a collection of 
files and put each test case in its own directory. (I have an XSL 
stylesheet that splits things up using naming conventions to distinguish 
correct/incorrect schemas and valid/invalid instances and a driver in Java 
that scans a directory and uses these the naming conventions to identify 
tests to run.)  It might be desirable to place some restrictions on the 
names of resources, so that some filenames are guaranteed to be reserved 
for use by the framework and so as to avoid names that cannot be used as 
filenames on some systems.

> 2. there probably are test cases that cannot be written by using the
>    test suite format anyway (e.g., a test case that uses DTD.)

You don't need DTDs for testing conformance to RELAX NG itself.  In any 
case, I believe the fewer things that cannot be put into the test suite the 
better.  I would rather work towards enriching the test suite format so as 
to allow everything to be put into the test suite format.

> How does this sound for you?  Or <resource>s are too vital for you to
> throw away?

I really need resources.  <include> in particular is one of the more 
complex parts of RELAX NG and testing <include> needs <resource>.

James