W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > June 2007

Re: shaping up Xproc unit test thoughts

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:58:16 -0400
To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <87645qiqo7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| / Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| | What's your definition of equivalent James?
| |
| | Something like xml signature?
| I agree with using fn:deep-equal, but it not being xpath 1.0 means its
| a not available for use here.
| going the other way, I did spend some time, a few years now,
| investigating xml similarity algorithms with no luck.
| I think for now we are dealing with simple equality and what
| XPATH/XSLT 1.0 has to offer here.

My test harness uses an extension component, px:equal, which is little
more than a wrapper around a call to fn:deep-equal.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As charms are nonsense, nonsense is a
http://nwalsh.com/            | charm.--Benjamin Franklin

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:19:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:42 GMT