W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2006

[Bug 3540] comments on guidelines (editorial)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:22:58 +0000
CC:
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GAZ2Q-0002cF-Iw@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3540


andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #3 from andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com  2006-08-08 21:22 -------
(In reply to comment #0)

> I think that the whole section "Customizing Namespaces" should be removed.
> All tests using schema import have now been removed from the minimal
> conformance section, and the tests that do use schema import, changing it to a
> namespace declaration will not produce the expected result.

Yes, this has been changed.

> the section on module location hints says
> 
>  The "at" keyword specifies an optional location hint. Location Hints can be   
>   interpreted or disregarded in an implementation-dependent way. An
> implementation can choose to use any of the location hints, or none at all.
> 
> which is more or less what it has to say, given the specification, but as noted
> in bug #3003, some of the tests assume that all the location hints are used (as
> they test for duplicated declarations) I think the guidelines need to allow
> implementors testing a system that would only use one location hint to 
> rewrite the query to use a URI to a system specific module which has done the
> merge "by hand". 

I believe that Carmelo made ths change.

> Customizing XQueryX Tests The example XQueryX is not valid  xqx:external may
> not take content. (first reported in bug #2400)

This has been changed.

> in Comparing Results
> you say
> 
>   Error: The expected result of the test case is and error, identified as an   
>  eight-character error code (e.g., XPST0003). The result of a test is true, if
> the implementation raises an error.
> 
> apart from the typo "and error" which should read "an error" Am I correct to
> read this as saying that it is _not_ necessary to check that exactly the
> correct
> error code is produced. My current test harness checks the codes but classes
> the test as a pass anyway, adding a comment if the codes are different. I
> thought I was doing that incorrectly and was planning to classify these as
> failures but if it is OK to classify these as pass, that is good (for me).

Yes, it is not necessary to have the correct error code to pass the test (see
comment #1).


Please mark this report closed if you agree with our resolutions.
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 21:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:44 GMT