W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > December 2004

Towards a test suite ...

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:38:31 +0000
Message-ID: <41C80B37.305@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: public-iri@w3.org

Here is a sketch of a test suite for IRI (no content just a design).

Test types:

Is an IRI.
   - test input data: a string
   - successful output: 'absolute' or 'relative'
      (maybe we need to distinguish between the generic syntax and the 
others too)

Is not an IRI.
   - test input data: a string
   - successful output: 'no'

Relative IRI resolution.
   - test input data: an absolute base IRI and a relative IRI
   - test output data: an absolute IRI being the resolution

IRI to URI mapping:
   - test input data: an IRI
   - test output data: the corresponding URI

Tests should exercise areas known to be difficult:
  - e.g. I would have difficulty with Unicode higher than 2.1 is it, 
because I work in Java, typically 1.4/1.3 where the unicdoe support does 
not range beyond 16bits.
  - e.g. the role of % in IRIs should be clear from the tests, 
particularly pertinent to the IRI to URI mapping one
  - e.g. spaces and similar should be tested, since this is an area 
where the current IRI-ID and specs like XLink, XMLSchema/anyURI differ

The test suite is enhanced by various mapping schemes that take the test 
data, say in plain text files, or in a simple XML format, and produce 
test data in some other format. I am happy to do an RDF/XML mapping, 
output would probably end up similar to RDF test cases.

With an RDF mapping some of the cases would not be fully exercised, 
since e.g. the RDF specs do not require the system to distinguish 
between a relative IRI without a base present, and a nonsense string. 
Both are simply errors.

I would expect similar limitations in any mapping to any other IRI 

It may be worth having a number (all?) of the test IRIs be resolvable 
IRIs on the W3C site, so that simple xhtml application can be built that 
actually works, if the browser supports IRI. The application should be 
very simple with automatically generated web pages. Conventionally on 
W3C site 'bad examples' are from example.{org,com,net} which may be 
suboptimal if we want an error other than 404. e.g.

   href="http://example.com/foo bar"

should fail, if the href is meant to be an IRI because of a syntax error 
(space in IRI) rather than a 404.

This wouldn't lead to a comprehensive test suite, since some MUSTs are 
not covered, e.g. to do with bidi and rendering.
Also need to pay attention to some MAYs, since a few (e.g. to do with 
spaces) water down some of the grammar.

There seem to be quite a lot of examples already in the IRI-ID, that 
could jsust be copied over in full.

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 11:38:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:38 UTC