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

Re: New EE variants of NoModificationAllowed.xml's, most tests now option safe

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:19:17 -0500
Message-ID: <002101c12bef$5bd4b7d0$a800a8c0@CurtMicron>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Mary Brady wrote:
>Didn't you have an element that could identify conditions under which the
test should be
>run?

Yes, if you place an <implementationAttribute name="enumdProperty"
value="true/false"/> immediately after the <metadata/> element, then the
test will attempt to change the document builder used for the test to be
compatible or will throw an exception in the test constructor and not be
reported as either a pass or a failure.

>How about if we make the harness smart enough to accept as input test
>conditions, and only run the tests that are available for those conditions
instead of
>running through the tests twice?

The reason the tests are run twice, each with a difference set of
conditions, is that the implementation could have, for example, dorked
something with namespace processing and would pass all the tests with, for
example, namespaceAware=false and fail some with namespaceAware=true, even
though none of the tests should need to change their expectations due to
namespace awareness.  Same goes for validation.  Since you would expect that
it would be rare for a bugs to be dependent on two parser configuration
attributes (for example, only occurs when namespaceAware=false and
validation=true), two runs should be sufficient and you don't need to run
all the permutations.

The two run behavior is not in the tests (that is dom1-core.jar), but in the
runners (junit-run.jar and avalon-run.jar).

> It seems as though I remember some other implementations
> that had somewhat different variants of whitespace -- in some cases,
comments and
> "normal" whitespace were stripped, in others, only "normal" whitespace was
> stripped.  Given that these options are not well-defined, we could let the
implementor
> using the tests provide the proper info.

The meanings of the various properties have to have well defined meanings
since the set the expectations between the test and the processor.  However,
there is no obligation for the an implementation to support any of the
properties, if it refuses to provide an implementation with validation =
true or ignoringElementContentWhitespace = true, the tests that required
those properties do not run.

ignoringElementContentWhitespace is the behavior described in JAXP 1.1.  If
the source document has a DTD, MSXML's whitespace processing is compatible.
So for the tests currently written, we would not need to distinguish between
the two.

If an implementations' whitespace elimination mode removes comments, then if
their implementation is JAXP compatible, they should throw an exception when
it is attempted to create a DocumentBuilder with
ignoringElementContentWhitespace = true.  If it is in another platform or
language, they have control on what configurations are tested and they just
don't test that configuration.

At least, it is essential to detect and compensate for
expandEntityReferences since the DOM specs explicitly allows entity
expansion.  Testing the Java parsers in both modes increases confidence in
the tests since the pool of parsers that do not support entity preservation
is pretty small, but non-zero (Xerces-C is an example).

Ignoring whitespace is a very common option and if I remember right, Batik
and maybe Adobe's SVG Viewer, are hardwired to remove whitespace in element
content.

On a related note, MSXML and Oracle's Java parser represent the XML
declaration as a processing instruction.  I don't know if any of the current
tests are affected by that (earlier test suites were), but if they are, I
would suggest addressing it by pruning the XML "PI" before returning from
the load() method
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 12:19:24 UTC

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