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

SV: [Xmlconf-developer] Updated domtest.xsd and simple attr.xml

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:38:15 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A655A@VXOIMP1>
To: "'David Brownell'" <david-b@pacbell.net>, Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
You're right, of course, the test may well be changed as a result of the
process I outlined.

In any case I cannot see that as an argument to kepp the metadata separate,
if the tests change, they remain one test; passsing them through a process
does not produce more tests or more metadata.

/Dimitris

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]
Skickat: den 23 maj 2001 19:04
Till: Dimitris Dimitriadis
Kopia: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: Re: [Xmlconf-developer] Updated domtest.xsd and simple attr.xml


>If we were to end up in a situation where there are different
> interpretations of the specification,

Make that "when" not "if"; it happens for every specification.
All you need is two different implementations, and you're
pretty much guaranteed different interpretations somewhere.


>     the DOM WG representative will be the
> person to either discuss this with the submitting party, or take it to the
> WG for clarification. The test is in the meanwhile frozen while being
> considered by either the DOM WG rep. or the DOM WG. 

I don't much care about the details of the procedure, though having
resolutions that are prompt, responsive, and stable is an important
part of the process.  (The XML WG didn't deliver on those points;
some resolutions took over a year to deliver, others didn't address
the issue, and in at least one case there was a significant reversal.)


> In either case the test remins as is, so there seems to be no need to
> separate documentation from the actual test.

Well, if the test remains as-is, then what changed as the result of
that procedure you're outlining?  Clearly, it's the test metadata,
affecting outputs or their interpretation ... and likely descriptions
explaining some of the inevitable strange consequences.

- Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 13:39:09 UTC

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