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

RE: Assert functionality

From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:40:45 -0700
Message-ID: <70E215722F6AD511820A000103D141D40AA647@thor.aeathtl.com>
To: "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'" <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> After some clarifications, it is in fact ok to use IBM Public 
> License or GPL softwares for the DOM Test Suites. As long as 
> we only use them, there is no issues. 

We are not modifying JUnit, Testlet, JSUnit, Nunit et al and I do not anticipate that we will.  When we have identified problems with one of the frameworks, their maintainers have been willing to
address the issue in a timely manner.

> If we need to modify 
> them, then neither the GPL or the IBM Public license would do 
> it. The Apache license is fine. So we don't really need to 
> develop special harness for the DOM Conformance Test Suites 
> in ECMAScript and Java if we don't modify the *Unit 
> harnesses. As Dimitris pointed out, we still need to be sure 
> that the tests can be reused with an other harness.

The Java tests have run (and I'll double check the CVS to make sure that I have put the code out there) with both JUnit and Avalon Testlet, so I feel pretty confident that the test jar could be run
with any arbitrary test framework after somebody has modified the adapter classes.

Using JUnit would be the preferred approach for Java testing, since you would assume that the target audience would be parser developers who want to integrate DOM tests into their build process or
external developers who want to determine compliance of a particular parser.

JSUnit while usable, isn't ideal for a relative novice who wants to determine how well a browser adheres to the recommendations.  Ideally, they could point their browser at a URL and run the tests
without any setup.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 15:42:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:45 GMT