W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts-submission@w3.org > July 2001

Re: nistmeta.xsl

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:00:58 -0400
Message-ID: <00d801c10887$f65be7f0$293b0681@HAPPY>
To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Cc: <www-dom-ts-submission@w3.org>
The information in the test-matrix.html file
only captures info regarding the test
purposes (or semantic requirements), not
necessarily all of the metadata for a particular test.
There is an additional description for a test
that more fully describes what happens in the
test itself, and should be used to supplement the
test purpose.  It is this information that resides
in an older rendition that needs to be brought into
the metadata file.  I would also suggest that it, along
with author, possibly creation date, revision date info
be carried along with each test, and translated into
prologue documentation -- probably javadoc for the
java transformation.

I noticed that you are still using rdf.  Why?

--Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Cc: <www-dom-ts-submission@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:11 AM
Subject: nistmeta.xsl


> I've made up a little XSLT transform that creates RDF metadata for
> the NIST tests by analyzing the Test Matrix at
> http://xw2k.sdct.itl.nist.gov/brady/w3c-dom/test-matrix.html  I first
needed
> to make that document a legal XML document by adding an /> to <br> and
<col>
> elements.
>
> Seems to generate garbage for the HTML tests, but does an okay job on the
> XML tests.  Basically, it scans the description of the test for any
> parameter name, exception code or 'returns' and emits a corresponding
> <dc:subject> element for the parameter, exception code or return values
with
> a resource URI that should be the same as the corresponding entry in
> subjects.rdf.  For example:
>
> <rdf:Description
> about="level-both/xml/nodeAppendChildNewChildDiffDocument.xml">
> <dc:title>nodeAppendChildNewChildDiffDocument</dc:title>
> <dc:description>The appendChild method raises a WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR
> DOMexception if newChild was created from a different document than the
one
> that created this node.</dc:description>
> <dc:subject
>
resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-core#
> ID-184E7107"/>
> <dc:subject
>
resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-core#
>
xpointer(id('ID-184E7107')/raises/exception[@name='DOMException']/descr/p[su
> bstring-before(.':')='WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR'])"/>
> <dc:subject
>
resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-core#
> xpointer(id('ID-184E7107')/parameters/param[@name='newChild'])"/>
> <dc:creator>NIST</dc:creator>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> The nistmeta.xsl is in the xmlconf CVS (viewable at
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xmlconf/www-dom-ts/nistmeta.x
> sl).  The sample of the generated output is at
> http://home.houston.rr.com/curta/domtest/tests.rdf
>
> The metadata processing code could append extracted in-test metadata with
an
> external metadata source to produce an overall external metadata file that
> would be used for the test matrix and other generation.
>
> The values of the about parameters would need to be generated to reflect
the
> eventual w3.org locator.
>
> What it the significance of level-both?  Wouldn't any test that tests
"both"
> levels really be a DOM level 1 test?
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 11:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:51 GMT