Re: Help wanted: A xslt transform for tests to HTML

>
>
>> 3. We are working on a web-based harness for the ECMA tests (and it
>> looks as if we'll drop Junit at some point, given Bob's work)
>
> Did you mean JUnit or JSUnit.  Dropping JUnit would be a bad thing since
> using a standard testing framework makes it easier for the DOM tests to 
> get
> integrated into the standard build process of implementations.  
> Requiring a
> custom testing framework hinders use of the tests.
>
> Having a custom runner for browser-based testing is beneficial, however 
> I'd
> still like the tests to be runnable both with JSUnit and the custom 
> browser
> runner.
>
>
I obviously mean JsUnit, that was a typo. If possible, we should use the 
JsUnit framework, especially since Edward has been helping out in 
incorporating improvements; if the changes we propose are not 
consinstent with the framework we may have to drop it, though.