Re: A kind of markdown test suite

On 21 November 2012 08:54, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
>
> Le 21 nov. 2012 à 16:57, Dave Pawson a écrit :
>> Is the MD syntax?
>
> This is the syntax as defined in
> http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
>
>> Have you made any assumptions about scope?
>
> No assumptions about scope.
>
>> whats the purpose please?
>
> To have individual md file for each type of constructs.
> And to learn what is missing in the current spec.
> There are many things undefined when you dig a bit.
> Having a strawman document with the specification rewritten and all issues box for everything which is undefined would be a nice start.

Understood. I think we are in general agreement. I'll put another post
on a per item basis so we can
look at each current MD syntax item and decide if it is in  / out for
a baseline. Your tests could then
reflect those decisions and match our baseline.
I can't see anyway round using  XHTML output of a transform for
testing though, except that it means
we need an implementation, and I think we are in agreement that there
are untested edge cases with
the current Perl MD implementation (one of which you mention).
  The positive is that we can align input / expected output as a
definition, even though we don't have
an aligned implementation.

Thanks Karl.



>> or use manual comparison for a result?
>
>
> Not sure what you mean here.


A test normally requires a pass/fail definition. If no auto comparison
is done then a visual comparison
of actual vs expected is required to define a pass/fail.
that's all I meant.


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 09:21:59 UTC