W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Testcase attrcreatetextnode2.xml in level1/core does not exer cise the test

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:43:30 -0700
Message-ID: <004d01c1ec13$cb3beb40$7300a8c0@scooby>
To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Yes, I'm getting a bit confused by the lag in getting e-mail
messages as well.  Yes, my preference would be to just
have two tests, with whatever we need to put in the DOM
TSML file(s) to get the required result -- if that means
using "Y&amp;ent1;", that's okay by me.  I think using
attrcreatetextnode and attrcreatetextnode2 as test names
are more consistent with the rest of the test suite than
using 3 and 4.  I haven't looked but probably goes for
level 2 as well.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: "'Mary Brady'" <mbrady@nist.gov>
Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Testcase attrcreatetextnode2.xml in level1/core does not exer
cise the test

> [ca] I'm pretty sure that attrcreatetextnode3 does what the author of
> attrcreatetextnode was wanting to do but didn't quite accomplish.
> [mb] I disagree -- it was simply a mistake in invoking the entity. These
> tests were originally authored here at NIST, so I'm privy to what the
> author intended. This one was written early on and has simply been
> translated into java and then DOM TSML with the error. The intent of
> the test was to set it to "Y&ent1;" and it was simply an error.
> [ca]
> Maybe it is the mail lag, but you say that you disagree and then say
> what I thought I was saying.   Maybe it is the extra level of entity
> processing involved with DOMTSML, for me to get "Y&ent1;" in the code, the
> text of the DOMTSML has to read "Y&amp;ent1;".
> The even numbered tests (2) and (4) do the same test but using
> setNodeValue() instead of setValue() since there was no other test that
> checked calling setNodeValue() for an attribute and reusing the existing
> test was the most expedient way of covering that function since
> and setValue are equivalent.
> With the two corrected tests, the value of the two flawed tests is
> They don't particularly hurt, but they don't help either.
> I was taking it as a general principle that we don't make substantive
> changes to a test after release so that the URL to a released test always
> means the same thing.  However, since we haven't really established any
> convention for addressing tests, the disruption of making this particular
> change in place in inconsequential.
> So, I assume that your preference would be to delete attrcreatetextnode3
> 4 and to modify attrcreatetextnode and attrcreatetextnode2 so they do the
> same thing that 3 and 4 do now.  If not, what would you suggest?
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 21:42:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:05 UTC