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

Re: contentType effects for test writers (build updated for HTML L2)

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:22:11 +0100
Message-Id: <200112102122.fBALMpa08055@mail.24-7webhosting.com>
Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
To: "Mary Brady" <mbrady@nist.gov>
comments inlined
On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 08:58  PM, Mary Brady wrote:

> We are trying to translate our existing HTML tests so that they may be
> used for DOM HTML Level 2.  In doing so, we need to write the tests
> so that they can be used for either HTML 4.0 or XHTML 1.0.  I think 
> we've
> already agreed that we will use two different files to load content -- 
> one
> will conform to HTML4.0 and will be named file.html -- e.g, 
> anchor.html --
> and the other will conform to XHTML 1.0, and be named file.xml --
> e.g, anchor.xml --
> As Curt points out, we will leave the extension off the <load> element, 
> and
> allow the extension to be determined by the contentType.  When we write
> tests for both HTML and XHTML, we will also put an ignoreCase="auto" on
> the <assertEquals> tag, etc.  In addition to this, do we update the
> alltests.xml, html_alltests.xml, and the xml_alltests.xml files 
> according to what
> tests should be run under what circumstances?  What about the
> <implementationAttribute> tag that was previously mentioned?  Is this 
> still
> necessary?
> In setting up the HTML and XHTML files, should the tag names in both 
> files
> be all lowercase?  The actual values of specific tags shouldn't make a 
> difference,
> should they?  When we try to access a particular tag via a DOM call, 
> should we
> always use lowercase values?  Is it necessary to use ignoreCase="auto" 
> on all
> calls to nodeNames or tagNames -- there may be several calls before a 
> particular
> assertion is made...
> Any need to also support XHTML 1.1 -- Module Based XHTML?
> We have about 100 of the HTML tests translated, and just need to make 
> minor
> changes to support both HTML and XHTML, and then we'll check them into 
> CVS.
[dd] Great. Do you have an idea of when these will be available?

> --Mary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Curt Arnold
> To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:34 PM
> Subject: contentType effects for test writers (build updated for HTML 
> L2)
> I want to recap the implications of the contentType work on the tests.
> All test cases should NOT specify an extension on the <load> element, 
> but allow the extension to be determined by the contentType.  All 
> existing cases in the CVS have been updated to remove the .xml 
> extension from the <load> element.
> Some tests cases that target both HTML and XML should use 
> ignoreCase="auto" to allow the case-sensitivity to vary depending on 
> the contentType.  Typically, these would be cases that check the 
> nodeName or tagName of selected node.  The expected value should be 
> lower-case.  For example:
> <assertEquals actual="docElemNodeName" expected='"html"' 
> ignoreCase="auto" id="nodeName"/>
> A very small handful of cases will need to have conditional sections 
> based on the contentType being processed.  The most common are tests 
> that check the document element name which is typically "svg" for 
> "image/xml+svg" instead of "staff".
> For each recommendation, there should be contentType specific alltests 
> suites.
> If you find that you need to write a lot of stuff in the test to adapt 
> to contentTypes, then I haven't done my job well.
> p.s. I've updated build.xml to point to the new HTML working draft.  
> You will need to manually remove any existing DOM2-HTML.zip file from 
> lib/specs since the new "offline" behavior will not update a previously 
> downloaded specification zip file.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 16:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:04 UTC