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

Re: isSupported12.xml

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:00:04 -0400
Message-ID: <006b01c15d7e$dfefed30$293b0681@HAPPY>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: RE: isSupported12.xml

> I think it is probably highly unlikely that an implementation would throw
an exception for a known but unsupported feature but not throw an exception
for a totally wacky feature.  However, if
> isSupported is going to be tested for all known features, then you should
add a wacky feature and version to cover the more likely failure of throwing
an exception for an unrecognized or "malformed"
> feature or version.
> I've been putting <!-- ISSUE  --> comments in tests that I think need to
have an errata to resolve (which would be the case here).

[mb] That's only valid if the spec indicates what should happen with an
unrecognized or malformed feature or version.  In this case,
no DOMExceptions are defined.  By the way, I think that all of the
isSupported tests could be replaced with a modified version
of isSupported12.xml, where we run through all of the known features, and
assert that a variable = "done" after successful completion.

In looking into this problem, we've also noticed that the feature "XML"
corresponds to all of the extended interfaces.  These interfaces
do not have to be supported by a HTML-only implementation, and therefore
should not be included in core.  Maybe we should
identify a different tree, called XML, for the tests that correspond to
these interfaces, so that there is a clear mapping to the spec.

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 14:11:35 UTC

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