MINUTES of XSLT WG telcon 2016-01-21 (Public Version)

60 minute Telcon -

=========================================================================

The XSL WG met on 2016-01-21
AGENDA:


3 Approval of minutes:from XSLT Telcon -
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2016Jan/0006.html
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Jan/0003.html

§§ Abel asked a question in the minutes requesting clarification of what Sharon had said about test reporting, Sharon attempted to clarify what she had said. (Regarding the test reports). Firstly she wants to have the testing organized and not just be a flat laundry list. Need to have some structure in what the categories are, preferably arranged hierarchically with totals rolled up. Also concerned that the categories for the QT3 test report are too low-level / fine-grained for reporting purposes.

§§ Secondly: the goal is for individual implementors to run tests on their own products, but there is always the possibility of doing what we did for 2.0, where we ran tests on implementations produced outside the WG.

§§ Minutes approved, noting the above clarifications.


6.1 Testing
  6.1.1. Review current status on test coverage - Abel
  6.1.2. Review XPath 3.1 test report - further discussion

 http://dev.w3.org/2011/QT3-test-suite/ReportingResults31/report.html

§§ See Abel's message : gaps in XT3 test suite. We studied the list.

§§ On HOF: note that we have quite a few tests for higher-order functions, the entry in Abel's list relates to HOF as an optional feature, and control thereof.

§§ Note item 12, this is specific to typed=strict, yes, and lax -other options are well enough covered.

§§ Norm has dropped off the call, but we would like to ask him to say which areas he is able to contribute tests.

§§ We should also try to get help from Florent.

7.0 Spec bugs since entering CR - first bug #29234


29375 [XT30] Changes of bug 29251 (dropping the XQuery Invocation feature etc) are not in the Changes section
  shouldn't this bug be designated xslt 3.0.

§§ Discussed. Sharon asked, can we update the change log retrospectively? Mike said we've done this kind of thing before. Carine says it's editorial, the change log is not normative. We can update the change log for version X in version X+1 if we need to.

Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 22:21:31 UTC