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

DOM WG F2F Demo and reactions

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:22:27 -0800
Message-Id: <200111160824.fAG8OA506024@mail.24-7webhosting.com>
To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Hi all

I ran the demo showing the framework, explained the building process and 
the directory structure, went over what software is needed, showed an 
xml doc as well as ECMA and Java output and ran the DOM1 Core jar 
testing Xerces as well as alltests.html testing Mozilla during this 
week's F2F.

Everything went fine, and reactions were in general positive. In 
particular, the original idea of using the xml format to enable 
generating of more than the proprietary bindings as well as 
documentation and metadata was better understood now, during the demo, 
than by describing it alone. Hopefully companies in the WG will see to 
that resources get available for populating the framework with more 
tests in the very near future, especially tests on new modules of the 
DOM specs.

As far as future ideas is concerned, here is a list of things that were 

1. Provide a simple, runnable, pre-release distribution in order to have 
people starting testing even now. My reaction was that we on the one 
hand want to ensure the integrity of the test suite, but that we on the 
other hand should allow for people to run tests, since the source and 
all tools needed are publically available in any case. I want to do this 
fairly soon, so we should now try to evaluate the tests we have and 
resolve any issues that exist now. All implementors on the list, please 
check the available code and send comments to correctness of the tests 
to this list, using [Test Review - testname.xml] _your reactions_ as the 
subject to this list as soon as possible.

2. Provide a simple transform to read a spec and do a smoke test; 
ripping out tests on each interface with all its methods and attributes, 
say. This would greatly enhance coverage, on the one hand, but would 
also serve as a good starting point for tests that could be further 
enhanced. It could also serve as the basic functionality tests on each 
module that the WG wants to see for level 3.

3. Documentation was asked for, since it is my action item from a long 
time back, I'll see to to provide if not a full documentation, then at 
least a draft in the CVS for completion by all parties that have been 
involved on their particular lines of work.

4. Provide dates or version numbers on the tests so that it's easier to 
extract information from running the different versions of the tests 
without having to refer to the version number of the suite as such. Can 
we have another round of packaging and versioning issues on the list?

Please excuse that I may have forgotten things; I will report on those 
as soon as the minutes are available.

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 03:25:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:03 UTC