# Fw: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:37:07 -0500
Message-ID: <000d01c1c9d3\$63c2ae70\$9700a8c0@sdct.nist.gov>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
I assume this was meant for the list as well?

--Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors

> Hi Mary,
>
> You caught me just before leaving the office :-)
> Inline:
>
>
> > First, you created a staff module, and pulled
> > it and the relevant xhtml modules together.
>
> Yup. The stuff module is
>
> xhtml-m12n-schema\SCHEMA\ext\DOM_TS_Staff\staff.xsd
>
> Don't pay much attention to it, it was created automatically using the DTD
as a base.
>
> >  Then, you
> > have a staff.xml that conforms to the above.  But, because
> > it is just a sample, it only contains one employee -- it would
> > have to be updated to be compatible with the existing staff.xml.
>
> Yes. My problem was time and I am not familiar with the complete staff.xml
model including entities, so I just left one example to avoid validity
errors and continue with the rest of the work. Updating the staff.xsd from
now on will be fine; the rest will keep working since the complete model is
defined by
>
> xhtml-m12n-schema\SCHEMA\xhtml1.1+DOMTS.staff-0.1.xsd
>
> Which just imports staff.xsd.
>
>
> > You also supplied a stylesheet that can be used to translate staff.xml
> > to it's xhtml version.  Is there a way to translate to an
> > html version?
>
> My output method is html! Actually I created the new staff.xml instead of
xhtml simply because I had validity problems (I was working on local files
that used http_mode relative URIs)... Anyway, the output of the stylesheet
(html) is what you are after; It was just convinient for me to use an xml
file instead while using the xsl to inspect the htm result without typing
the DOCTYPE declarations manually. But that xsl may proove usefull to your
framework after all, since you guys will be working both with xml and htm
files for some time.
>
> If you mean html4.0 or something like that, I'm sorry but it is not
applicable; however, the whole point is that xhtml behaves as html as far as
scripting goes in browsers (for example) so it suits our purpose.
>
> >
> > So, in order to use this, I have to update staff.xml, and
> > then translate
> > to xhtml and html.  But the advantage is that we do not have to do
> > hand translations...
>
>
> Yes, when you update staff.xml you will have to also update staff.xsd (if
it does not cover your model or entities). Then you can use the xsl to build
the target htm file (that behaves better in browsers; they like .htm
although xhtml is essentially xml).
>
>
> >
> > Am I close?  If not, please let me know, as I would like to understand
> > this approach fully.
>
> Yes I appreciate that. Note that further development for me will be far
mor easy if the directory I've sent you becomes available on-line. That way
my editors or whatever will not complain for validity (otherwise I have to
go through workarounds as above or sit and edit those relative URIs
manually).
>
> I really think this m12n thing will help though... Play with it and email
as needed, I will answer any mails 1st thing in the morning. BTW I also have
to check I'm using the correct public id... Oh well. See u 2morrow.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Manos
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --Mary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> > Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:21 AM
> > Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors
> >
> >
> > > Where can I upload or send this? I can't just post it to
> > the list; I've
> > used the directory structure as found in [1], ended up with 2.2 MB
> > (unzipped).
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-m12n-schema-20011219/xhtml-
> > m12n-schema.zi
> > p
> > >
> > > Manos
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:00 PM
> > > > To: Manos Batsis
> > > > Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > HTML processors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you take a look at the existing files, under
> > > > /level1/core/files and give it a try?
> > > >
> > > > --Mary
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> > > > Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:49 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > HTML processors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Would this approach require that all processors would
> > > > have to support
> > > > > > XHTML Modularization?
> > > > >
> > > > > XHTML m12n is not something that a processor supports
> > > > explicitly; as with
> > > > any XML vocabulary, it depends on your needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > A browser for example can display an extended XHTML
> > > > document by treating
> > > > known XHTML elements as usual while determining the display
> > > > of the rest
> > > > based on style (CSS) or some default handling rules (i.e.
> > > > display the text
> > > > contained in them). Validation is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Something more critical can validate such a document using
> > > > a DTD or Schema
> > > > that contains the XHTML modules along with the custom modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > With m12n, you can use one file to perform HTML
> > dependent tests (for
> > > > example using HTML specific collections such as
> > > > document.forms) or raw XML
> > > > tests to non XHTML elements included in such a file while the
> > > > file is valid
> > > > (either as XML or XHTML).
> > > > >
> > > > > Kindest regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Manos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Mary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> > > > > > To: <bv@opera.no>; "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:48 AM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > > > HTML processors
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > XHTML test files must be valid to be XHTML in the first
> > > > > > place; technically
> > > > > > speaking though, there is a way to have valid XHTML just
> > > > by adding a
> > > > > > 'wrapper'[1] to the existing files while using XHTML
> > > > > > Modularization (either
> > > > > > in XML Schema [1] or DTD [2]). I would be very interested
> > > > to help if
> > > > > > something like that is chosen, especially if XML Schema
> > > > is involved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] like
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <!DOCTYPE  bla>
> > > > > > > <html xmlns="myDomain/bla">
> > > > > > >    <head>
> > > > > > >       <title>
> > > > > > >          Untitled
> > > > > > >       </title>
> > > > > > >    </head>
> > > > > > >    <body>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <!-- existing XML content -->
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    </body>
> > > > > > > </html>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-m12n-schema-20011219/
> > > > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kindest regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Manos
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Bjørn Vermo [mailto:bv@opera.no]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:40 PM
> > > > > > > > To: 'www-dom-ts@w3.org'; Arnold, Curt
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > > > > > HTML processors
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2002-03-06 18:36:21, "Arnold, Curt"
> > > > > > <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >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>.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe it would be more useful to use
> > constructs like <div
> > > > > > > > class="employeeid"> and <a class="domestic" href=2xx">
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Bjørn Vermo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:38:13 GMT

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