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

Re: Action item list and agenda for telephone conference

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:15:03 -0400
Message-ID: <001201c0e453$8b814fe0$293b0681@HAPPY>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>

If you are having difficulties with setting up
a telecon, NIST could host it -- I believe I
just need 24 hours notice.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
To: "'Arnold, Curt'" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>; <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:56 AM
Subject: SV: Action item list and agenda for telephone conference

> Thanks for pointing this out, Curt. I had no idea about Monday being a
> holiday.
> Obviously the telcon will be scheduled sometime after that, then. Please
> me get back to the list with details as soon as I have a more definite
> on how many people there will be. I do not expect us to be more than 10
> people, since not that many have commucatied interest.
> /Dimitris
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Arnold, Curt [mailto:Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com]
> Skickat: den 23 maj 2001 20:51
> Till: 'www-dom-ts@w3.org'
> Ämne: RE: Action item list and agenda for telephone conference
> Just in case, please Be aware that Monday is a
> significant legal holiday in the US.
> Here is are some of the issues that I know of:
> 1. Use of Java binding like accessors and mutators
> I'll update the schema to use IDL like accessors and mutators.
> There will be some loss of constraint checking but the number
> of read-write properties is small.
> 2. No mechanism for in-line metadata
> I would suggest either adding to the content model of <test>,
> <suite> and the assertions either a <metadata> element with
> a very permissive content model or a <rdf:RDF> element.
> However, with the acknowledgement that external metadata
> is expected and that in-line metadata should be reserved
> for (relatively) fixed metadata (for example, author or source,
> not test results for a particular processor)
> 3. Test packaging
> Suite definition is currently supported by placing test
> definitions within <suite> elements.  Preferable to
> have tests as independent XML documents.  I propose
> defining <suite> with <test href=".."/> children as
> an interim approach but think that we might eventually use EARL
> to define test packaging.
> 4. Identifying test documents
> I had defined a <document> element to provide some
> mechanism for indirection, however that is definitely
> inadequate.  I propose switching <load> back to using
> a URI to identify the test document but
> with the expectation that a mechanism
> outside of the test definition (RDDL?) would be used to
> resolve the test URI to an local resource.
> 5. Lack of usable XML schemas for DCMES and EARL
> The XML schema for DCMES seems pretty strange on
> a quick read and I'm pretty sure that it is not valid.
> I don't know of an XML Schema for EARL.  There is
> an (non-normative) XML Schema for RDF on the schema
> home page.
> 6. Lack of visibility (at least from outside the DOM WG)
> I haven't seen the existing XSLT transform for
> Java and ECMAScript.  I assume they are against the NIST
> DTD and maybe against the NIST testing framework.
> Since I'm spending a good deal of personal time on this,
> it would be good to have some idea that I'm not replicating
> work that is already going on.  It would be very helpful
> if people could publicly state at least what they are
> thinking about working on or need for their continued
> progress.
> 7. Coordination with XML Schema test development
> I've pinged the xmlschema-dev list to see if
> they could share their approach to test metadata.
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 09:16:54 UTC

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