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

Re: Updated domtest.xsd and simple attr.xml

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:33:11 -0500
Message-ID: <000f01c0e092$290f27c0$f8021942@curtbnmqewb54k>
To: <xmlconf-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> I do have a couple of questions.
>
> 1)  For the Document interface, it appeared that the following were
missing:
>
>         doctype
>         documentElement
>         createCDATASection
>         createComment
>         createDocumentFragment
>         createElement
>         createProcessingInstruction
>         createTextNode
>
>         getElementById (maybe a typo -- I saw getElementsById)
>         implementation  (should this be Document.implementation)?

doctype and documentElement are <Document.getDoctype> and
<Document.getDocumentElement>.
The others are in the schema documentation on
http://home.houston.rr.com/curta/domtest/domtest.html.  I did typo
getElementById

A test has to start by either loading an XML file using <load> or accessing
the DOMImplementation under test with the <implementation> tag (in case you
are building a document dynamically) both of these would get transformed to
an code specific for the parser under test.

> I just looked at the Document interface -- there may very well be others.
> Is this schema
> possibly still in process?

Definitely very much a work in process, I initially posted it only after a
few hours of work to let you know I was thinking.

> 2)  What are you using as names for the methods and attributes -- the IDL
> names, the java
> binding, or something else?  This becomes important particularly for the
> attributes -- they
> are defined as get/set methods in java, and as attributes in ECMAScript.
> Differences are
> either handled here, or will have to be handled in the transformation, and
> was the primary
> reason for using IDL names as entity references in the other approach.
> Doing so with a
> conditional include allowed for the automatic substitution of
> binding-specific names.  I don't
> mind doing it another way -- do you have something else in mind?

I am using the Java binding names since there are distinct content models
for the accessors and mutators.  I am aware that the IDL and ECMAScript
binding are expressed in a property notation.  The fact that
<Node.getNodeValue> is a property accessor is maintained in the schema (its
type is DOMPropertyAccessor) and that information could be used in the XSLT
transform that generates the ECMAScript tests.

>
> 3)  Would it be possible to make use of inheritance for your
> attribute/method declarations?
> I would think that this would be an advantage that schemas could provide
> over a DTD
> approach?  I don't currently see attributes and methods defined for
> inherited interfaces.  For
> example, Text should inherit everything from CharacterData, which in turn
> should inherit
> everything from Node.

I don't believe that it is necessary or beneficial to replicate elements for
the inherited methods and
properties.

<Node.getNodeValue obj="node" var="value"/>

would get translated to:

value = ((Node) node).getNodeValue();  //Java

or

value = node.nodeValue;  //ECMAScript

Whether Node, CharacterData, etc appeared left of the "."  would only add an
"instanceOf" check that could already be handled with a:

<assert><instanceOf var="node" type="CharacterData"/></assert>

(Note: var probably should be obj and a distinct <assertInstanceOf> would
probably be useful)

> I'm not sure if I have mentioned that we have added about 200 tests to the
> the collection
> of NIST tests and I expect that about another 200 will have to be written
to
> fully cover
> DOM Level 2 -- we have covered namespaces, errata, and exceptions, but
have
> not
> fully accounted for inherited attributes/methods.  In a couple of days, I
> should be finished
> with a proposed list of tests for all interfaces, with a mapping of the
NIST
> tests.  We
> can then identify any holes and will be ready to write additional tests.
I
> would like to
> use the TSML for this purpose.

I've been doing some exploratory work on DOM 2 Events testing and have
encoded about 20 tests in the domunit CVS and have been working on
corresponding language elements to support that type of testing.

Here is basically what I was hoping to do:

a) Make a domunit release for Java (now with support for JAXP, Batik and
Oracle and additional "Unofficial" tests).

b) Relay my interpretations of results to Oracle, Batik and Crimson teams.

c) Make some additional refinements to the schema.  The most significant
would be the ability to nest code within assertions that would only execute
if the assertion was true.  This eliminates either asserting that an object
was not null and then executing a method on it and throwing an exception or
having to code an identify if immediately after the assertion.

<Node.getAttributes obj="element" var="attributes"/>
<assertNotNull actual="attributes">
    <!--  code that only gets executed if attributes != null -->
    <NamedNodeMap.getNamedItem obj="attributes" var="domestic"
name='"domestic"'/>
    <!-- ...  -->
 </assertNotNull>
<!--  other tests that don't depending on attributes != null  -->

d) Recode the domunit source to the schema and make any necessary
refinements or corrections.  I had originally thought that this should be
automated so you could round trip, however with schema validation of the
test definition it shouldn't be that bad to develop in XML.  So I'll
probably do this as a trial and error conversion using a programming editor.

e) Iterate on a XSLT sheet targeting JUnit

f) Regenerate domunit from the XML source using (e)

g) Modify e for ECMAScript and C++


I'm going to try to get (a-b) done today, (c-e) over the next few days.  As
I put things in the xmlconf CVS or make releases, I'll announce it on
xmlconf-developer but won't on  www-dom-ts.
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2001 14:30:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:02 UTC