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

Re: [General] Status?

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:29:20 -0500
Message-ID: <001101c120e8$0f617030$a800a8c0@CurtMicron>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
To: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>;
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:07 AM
Subject: SV: [General] Status?

> I'm back from my vacation and would like to do a quick check on the items
> list posted earlier and listed below.
> I think we are ready to move quite fast toward publishing the DOM TS if we
> allow for the following:
> 1. Some period to sanity check and edit existing transforms and build

I don't expect the Java transform to be perfect, however I think that when
we start to walk through the NIST contributed tests, we will quickly
identify latent issues.

I have worked a little on a ECMAScript transform but haven't written enough
supporting code to run the few tests that I have generated.

Haven't done anything on Python.

> 2. A general discussion as to whether ANT will be used as the primary tool
> for builds.

I thought it was the most appropriate tool.  What alternatives would you
like to suggest?

> 3. A general discussion as to whether people wanting to download the files
> themselves should be able to do this to both build the DOM TS as well as
> write their own harness around it.

The W3C CVS has anonymous read-access so unless we intentionally want to
prevent people from accessing the source, they are technically capable of
doing it.  Since the most significant audience for the test source and
harnesses are parser authors, I don't think that it is necessary to provide
an easier way to get at the source.

The standoff over using the W3C Software License was explicitly to allow
legitimate deriviative works.  I only made my contributions after I thought
this issue was resolved.  Reversing that decision and making the tests or
harness non-public would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the suite
and would do seriously bad things to my attitude.

> 4. Release of NIST tests, sanity check, editing, being done.

I understand NIST's desire not to publish anything that isn't almost
perfect.  But it is impossible to determine any coverage issues and
discourages anyone else from trying to contribute tests until the NIST tests
are committed to the CVS (which will hopefully happen shortly).

> 5. Production of documentation, being done.
> I think all other issues that have been raised have been solved. Please
> advise if this is not the case.
> Kind regards,
> /Dimitris
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 11:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:03 UTC