FW: Onward to Design Questions #2 and #3 (Action Item for TC)

[Lynda VanVleet <lvanvleet@classiq.com>]

original sent to Dave instead of the list

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda VanVleet [mailto:lvanvleet@classiq.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:23 AM
To: David_Marston@lotus.com
Subject: RE: Onward to Design Questions #2 and #3 (Action Item for TC)


My late reply follows

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David_Marston@lotus.com [mailto:David_Marston@lotus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: xslt-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Onward to Design Questions #2 and #3 (Action Item for TC)
>
>
> Okay, we inched toward consensus that the correct-output files would be
> delivered in a directory tree that is parallel to the tree of test cases.
> That opens the possibility that the names of output files can match all
> the way to the tag/extension between actual and reference output. The
> next set of questions concerns this naming scheme.
>
> I sense that we want to deliver both raw and InfoSetized reference
> output, based on remarks at the July meeting and since. The InfoSetized
> is required for comparison, while the raw is a convenience to help the
> test labs see that they are doing the processing correctly. If anyone
> objects to sending both, speak up now because follow-up questions will
> assume we send both.
>
> Committee members: consider this a canvassing operation. I'd like to
> see how close we are to consensus, but also get your reasons why you
> hold the opinion you do. If you have no opinion, please respond anyway
> and say you have no opinion. All responses to the list, and use the
> "Reply" feature if at all possible, or otherwise indicate that your
> message is a response to this particular item. (Other design-decision
> threads will be started later.)
>
> Terminology note: When I introduced the topic in my "Notes about name
> management, and questions not yet resolved" message of July 13, I used
> the terms "primary" and "secondary" to refer to input and output files.
> I have since learned that the XSL Working Group is likely to use the
> word "principal" rather than "primary" for the same purpose, so I'm
> making that same change as of now.
>
> Design Question #2: How should filetype extensions be used on the
> raw output files and the corresponding correct-output files?
> This question only applies to the principal output, since all secondary
> outputs would be named directly in the stylesheet. (Actually, there is a
> subsidiary question about console log files. We probably don't have to
> pick a naming scheme for those.) There are two possibilities here:
> A. All principal transformation outputs have the same extension, like .out
> (actual to be determined in a later question), regardless of whether the
> file is text, XML, or HTML.
> B. Principal transformation outputs have an extension pertaining to the
> type. Exact extension tags are to be determined later, but the old
> favorites would be .xml for XML, .html or .htm for HTML, and .txt for
> text.

Definitely B for me and I like the old favorites.  Helps me in the display
of output for test analysis.
>
> Design Question #3: Should the canonicalized and InfoSetized outputs
> be distinguished by naming, directories, or both?
> This question applies to both principal and secondary output files, but
> not to log files. We won't deliver the final-stage canonicalized form,
> but we can anticipate that most test labs will follow our precedent.
> Assume that this question also applies to both the supplied "correct"
> output and the generated output, though we mainly control the former.
> There are three possibilities here:
> X. Additional parallel directory trees hold the canonicalized and
> InfoSetized versions of the outputs, but filenames are exactly the same.
> Only the directory at the top of the sub-tree distinguishes the file.
> Example: output-raw/x/y/numbering01.out after InfoSetizing is stored in
> output-infoset/x/y/numbering01.out.
> Y. Additional parallel directory trees hold the canonicalized and
> InfoSetized versions of the outputs, and a naming scheme distinguishes
> the files. The scheme could be a prefix, suffix, or altered tag, which
> will be determined later. Example: output-raw/x/y/numbering01.out after
> InfoSetizing is stored in output-infoset/x/y/numbering01.iset.xml (all
> InfoSetized files are XML, regardless of source).
> Z. A naming scheme distinguishes the files, but they are in the same
> directory. Example: output/x/y/numbering01.out after InfoSetizing is
> stored in output/x/y/numbering01.iset.xml (note same directory).

I vote Y.  Again I know the output type and that is is the InfoSetized
version which is programmatically a great help.
>
> Reminder: below are some considerations that you may use as the basis for
> your choice:
> + Ease of test lab locating files when comparing
> + Ease of test lab organizing storage of test-run results
> + Ease of cataloging and/or need to change catalog design
> + Ease of submission and creation of reference files for submission
> + Likelihood of naming conflicts between submitter and OASIS
> + Uniformity of merged catalog vs. submitter creativity
> + Likelihood of errors, either by Committee or test labs
> + Impact of changing submitter's filenames or directory names
> + How the test lab will invoke their comparison tool
>
> PLEASE RESPOND RIGHT AWAY! We have more questions to settle by August 21!
> .................David Marston
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
> xslt-conformance-request@lists.oasis-open.org