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

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

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:06:25 -0500
Message-ID: <000901c18255$6716c0e0$293b0681@HAPPY>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Okay -- we'll see how far we get -- can't really tell yet when they will
be committed.  It depends on how many problems we uncover.  At this
point, changes will be made to the tests as indicated below.  I'm sure
that they will be ready in a day or two.  We'll commit them as soon as
the changes are made, but they won't run until after the input files are
ready.  We also have to fix these up and in some cases create the input
so that they are valid HTML/XHTML.  I'm just now figuring out the subtle
differences - I'll know more in a couple of hours.  Any thoughts on what
we should use for a character encoding -- utf-8, utf-16, or something else?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: contentType effects for test writers (build updated for HTML

> Comments inlined.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:59 PM
> To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> Subject: Re: contentType effects for test writers (build updated for HTML
> L2)
> 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 --
> [ca] That was my take
> As Curt points out, we will leave the extension off the <load> element,
> 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
> what
> tests should be run under what circumstances?  What about the
> <implementationAttribute> tag that was previously mentioned?  Is this
> necessary?
> [ca - begin]
> I don't believe that we need a case-sensitivity implementation attribute
> I have not implemented it.  ignoreCase="auto" should do the appropriate
> thing with a lot less coding.  There should be very few tests that don't
> for both contentTypes, so you should just put the tests into alltests.xml
> and they will automatically become part of html-alltests and xml-alltests.
> The only time that you would need to segregate tests would be when testing
> content that was legal HTML but not legal XHTML.  For example, anchor.html
> had a <A> element as an immediate child of <BODY> and had a accessKey
> attribute that was not defined in the XHTML DTD.  To make anchor.xml a
> XML file, I put an intervening <p> element and removed the accessKey
> attribute.  I don't know if anchor.html was valid HTML or if the XHTML DTD
> added constraints beyond that of HTML.
> [ca-end]
> 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,
> 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...
> [ca]The tag and attribute names need to be lowercase in the XHTML source
> documents to be valid XHTML.
> Node name parameters to getElementsByTagName, getNamedItem, getAttribute
> similar should be lower case, per the discussion on HTML and XHTML
> interoperability in the XHTML spec.  (ignoreCase auto only applies to
> <assertEquals> and <equals> it does not apply to any elements that
> correspond to DOM methods).   It is probably preferable for the HTML
> documents to have upper case tag and attribute names since that would
> that the HTML processor is appropriately implementing case-folding on the
> previously mentioned methods.
> Any need to also support XHTML 1.1 -- Module Based XHTML?
> [ca]Good question, I don't know my way around the XHTML family.  I think
> only think that would change would be the <!DOCTYPE> element, however.
> We have about 100 of the HTML tests translated, and just need to make
> changes to support both HTML and XHTML, and then we'll check them into
> [ca]That would be great.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 10:06:34 UTC

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