OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xslt-conformance message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for meeting 2000-09-06 09:00-12:00EDT


Greetings:

With apologies for the lateness, I've only just managed to use the holiday 
weekend to get back to duties for this committee (thanks to all for 
understanding), and so have some input here.

1.	Sun has a suite of tests from the development of the XSLT engine for 
their Forte Fusion project which Ron Ten-Hove developed.  They've forwarded them 
to me for submission to the committee on Sun's behalf.

2.	I also append Ron's comments, for any edification it might add, on his  
strategy for referencing between the tests and the specification which seemed 
worthy of mention in connection with Tony, Eduardo, and Ken's "Re: Which file 
should be the basis for pointing into XSLT?" thread.

I don't know to what degree the submission of Sun's tests are to be included on 
the agenda, but please consider making appropriate room for them to mentioned 
and described.

respectfully submitted,

Rohn Robert

<test-to-spec-linkage>

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
From: "Ron Ten-Hove" <ronald.ten-hove@ebay.sun.com>
To: "John Robert Gardner" <John.Robert.Gardner@east.sun.com>
Subject: RE: XSLT Conformance Committee Input/Meeting

. . . 

This sounds similar to the approach I took.  I actually printed out 
a copy of the spec with page and line numbers, and named each test 
after the piece of the spec it was to test:

	xx.yy.z

	xx = page number
	yy = line number
	z  = 0, 1, 2... for multiple tests from a single line
		(or multiple files for include/import stuff).

> It stands to reason then, that we should have a W3C specification 
> version for Conformance, yes?  With links therefrom to respective 
> test stylesheets?  Would this be a fair and viable extrapolation 
> on my part from what you've written below?  It seems a very 
> useful way to go about things, and could be coupled with a per-component > > 
>directory structure 
> arrangment as well, allowing tests to be accessed either via-spec 
> or via-topic. 

Agreed.

Please, feel free to share these comments with the committee, and
whomever else you deem appropriate.  I hope my experience can be
of help.

Other thoughts:

   a) it would be nice to divide the tests up according to the
      various sections of the PR.  The same should be done for
      XPath.  Testing a single feature at a time makes debugging
      the processor easier.
   b) it should be required that the XML parser being used passes
      the current OASIS test suites.

. . . .

</test-to-spec-linkage>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC