[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
- From: Gary Stephenson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:27:23 +1000
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brownell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Richard Tobin" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
> IMO a much saner process for W3C to follow would be to make
> sure that their errata are _immediately_ reflected in the conformance
> test suite. Lags between problem reports, initial resolutions, test
> updates, detection of bugs in resolutions/updates (rinse, repeat, ...)
> are just trouble.
Yes, wholeheartedly agreed. Until recently I have been using the Conformance
Test suite as my authoritative guide when testing my own processor (written in
Xbase++). I had naively been touting the fact that my processor actually
passed all the tests in the official test suite. Traps for young players...
(young to XML - not to the planet at large <g>).
It seems strange that the Test Suite is not published by the same body that
published the spec - i.e. the W3C. It would appear that the W3C are extremely
good at dealing with the "abstract realm" without necessarily ever dirtying
their hands in the real world of implementation. IMHO it would be much better
if the W3C ditched the idea of "specs" altogether in favour of "test suites".
The spec would then effectively just be a narrative on the test suite, and
there could be far less room for misinterpretation and wasted effort. To my
knowledge there is still no authoritative test suite for Namespaces - a
running sore if ever there was one, given that most of the other specs
published since have presumed Namespace conformance.
BTW is the "patch" you referred to actually the 2nd edition of the test suite,
or is it in fact a patch _to_ the 2nd edition.