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

Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:52:49 -0500
Message-ID: <000a01c1c537$bbfb5b50$b000a8c0@scrappy>
To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
I was thinking of something similar, although maybe trying to translate the
xml into [X]HTML that wasn't gibberish.  My first thought was trying to make
a table that had elements that corresponded to employees.  We would have to
be careful to ensure that the proper content models were represented.

I'm home on medical leave right now and can't really work on it this week.
I
hope to be able to put some time into this next week.  If someone else gets
to it first, just let me know where you are and how I can help.

--Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors


> I was thinking that you could produce an close [X]HTML analogue of
staff.xml
> by doing a direct translation of each element in staff to a distinct
[X]HTML
> element with a similar content model.
>
> Most of the elements simply contain PCDATA and have no attributes, so you
> could make <employeeId> to <code> and <salary> to <pre>, etc and could
> change <address domestic="">something</address> to <a
href="">something</a>,
> <employee> could go to <p>.  The only structural change that would be
> changing <staff> to <html><body>.
>
> Though the resulting HTML document would be gibberish (but valid
gibberish),
> it would then allow most of existing tests to also be automatically
> translated and you would add 300+ tests that would now run on HTML, XHTML
> and XML implementations.  Since it is likely that some processors would
> recognize XHTML elements and use XHTML specific node implementations, I
> think it would be worthwhile to preserve the existing tests and just add
the
> new derived tests.  So XML processors would run 600 tests and HTML
> processors would only run the 300 that they were compatible with.
>
> Any thoughts?  How would you name the new tests? Prefix or postfix "HTML"?
> Something else?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 12:48:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:46 GMT