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

Re: Action items status

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:50:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3D365731.1030908@houston.rr.com>
To: www-dom-ts@w3.org

Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

> All,
> I'd like to do a survey on how things stand in order to estimate how 
> much more work we need before being able to release the next version 
> of the DOM TS. Most activity of late has been in connection with HTML 
> tests, and not so much the DOM TS framework.
> 1. HTML. What is the count of tests for L1/2? Have they been checked 
> for correctness? 

I've gotten HTML L1 down to what I think are true implementation bugs. 
 Rick was supposed (and probably has) mirrored the changes into the HTML L2.

> 2. Framework. I've informed the DOM WG that we've started working on a 
> new framework and invited the member companies to provide feedback on 
> the new framework. Are there particular issues Bob and Edward would 
> like help with? When do you expect to be able to run the new framework 
> with the old tests? 

There is currently a fork in the JSUnit work.  About a month ago, I 
updated test-to-ecmascript.xsl, the support files and provided a hacked 
version of the initial JSUnit 1.3 alpha that would run the tests. While 
I was in the death throes of getting that ready, Bob issued a revised 
JSUnit 1.3.  I had asked Bob to review the generated tests and my hacked 
JSUnit and suggest a path forward, but didn't get any feedback.  I like 
the way the tests are currently rendered and in general, like the 
modifications that I made to JSUnit.  However, I did the JSUnit mods 
quick and dirty and may have broken something, so I'd suggest 
incrementally working in the changes and making sure that existing non 
TS tests still run.

> There are a few more issues that I've taken up with the DOM WG, in 
> particular:
> 1. Tests for particular modules. We've discussed having tests written 
> for the modules by those responsible for producing them (the member 
> companies whose representatives prdocue the specifications).
> 2. DOM TS Group involvement: I've raised the issue of not having a 
> very balanced division of labour (as indicated earlier in a series of 
> postings to this list) which in turn means that we cannot ensure that 
> all implementations will run smoothly with the new framework.
> Any other issues?
> /Dimitris
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 01:50:48 UTC

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