W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Two Specs and Test Suite

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:42:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4BEACF.4050304@arcanedomain.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, W3C XML-ER Community Group <public-xml-er@w3.org>


On 2/27/2012 3:24 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 21:09 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> >  Therefore, I propose that we do both. Further, I'm happy to edit the declarative-style specification unless there's someone else who wants to do it. Are there any objections to that as a way forward?
> +1!
>
>> >  We will also need a test suite, and it sounds as if one that is based on the XML result of an ER parse would be easiest to manage and most generally useful. Does anyone have any suggestions about how best to manage and maintain one?
> I think that the hard part in testing this is to do so in a manner that is friendly to both browser and batch environments. In the former, the easiest is to run assertions against the DOM that's produced, but in the latter it's likely to produce some form of canonical version (which doesn't have to be C14N  for instance PYX has historically been great for testing) or use some form of XML diff facility.
>
> I don't think that there are any in-browser XML diff facilities, and it's not clear that there's a reliable XML serialiser we could use there. The simplest might therefore be to use PYX-based reference interpretations and those could be compared in either situation. But that's just one way that it could work and is entirely based on what I assume implementers will find most useful.

It occurs to me that, at least for testing purposes, the XML 
Canonicalization specification [1] may be a useful building block. I 
suspect one might have to add a few rules beyond what it standardizes, but 
if you serialize two DOMs and then canonicalize, you're probably pretty far 
along toward having strings that can be compared character-for-character. 
Of course, if we decide to specify XML-ER at the source level after all, 
then one can skip the serialization step, and for texting just use 
C14N(suitably enhanced) and string compare.

Just a thought.

Noah


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 20:43:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 February 2012 20:43:22 GMT