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

SV: [Action Items] Top priority (Revision period, ECMA transform, Har ness, Packaging)

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:30:11 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A6CE6@VXOIMP1>
To: "'Jason Brittsan'" <jasonbri@microsoft.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
Thanks, Jason

Could I hope for some commited resources on your behalf on producing the
ECMA transform and harness? 

Obviously, no official testing period will start before the infrastructure
is ready, however people have the opportunity to check the code as it is
committed to the CVS.

/Dimitris

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Jason Brittsan [mailto:jasonbri@microsoft.com]
Skickat: den 20 augusti 2001 22:02
Till: Dimitris Dimitriadis; www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: RE: [Action Items] Top priority (Revision period, ECMA transform,
Har ness, Packaging)


On the matter of revision, we should wait until both the Java and
ECMAScript transforms and harnesses are complete and usable before
starting the 10 day review period.  This gives parties who are only
interested in one binding an equal opportunity to evaluate the test
cases.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitris Dimitriadis [mailto:dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se] 
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:12 AM
To: 'www-dom-ts@w3.org'
Subject: [Action Items] Top priority (Revision period, ECMA transform,
Har ness, Packaging)

Revision
A mentioned earlier, we should need no more than a week to 10 days to
agree
on the quality and correctness of the tests.I propose that requests to
put
individual tests in the issue tracking project are put forward to this
list
first, in order to save time if there is a very simple solution. [All]

ECMA transform
We should be able to produce one fairly soon, as we have a solid Java
transform [ca/dd/?]

Harness
The DOM WG expressed the wish for the possibility to be able to run the
ECMA
variants of the tests, presumably directly from the DOM TS pages. This
does
raise the issue of making available the test descriptions and the
stylesheets only (together with the DTD/Schema, if needed) in order to
write
the harness. Also, however, this raises issues on letting people write
their
own harnesses around the tests. [mb/all]

Packaging
Freek's first file used the suite.member convention, which looks fine to
me,
so I propose that we continue using that, as was originally proposed,
unless
anyone thinks otherwise. 

Remaining metadata issues (erroneously given as Low Priority previosly)
Is this final? Are we going to look into it some more?
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 13:30:28 UTC

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