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

Re: DOM TS L2 HTML Results

From: Robert Clary <bclary@netscape.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:07:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3DE92892.2000605@netscape.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

> 
> I'm wondering if we should have more than one test suite for ECMAScript:
> One for HTML, one for XHTML, and one for XML. It seems like by trying to
> mix all of them, we run into unnecessary troubles.

I believe that the issue with the current design has to do with the 
inability to select the content type of the test document which is 
served as well as the inability to choose the implementation that is 
being tested.

In the current approach we have lost that ability and hide the 
differences between implementations in handling content types (for 
example Internet Explorer's native handling of XML versus MSXML's 
handling of XML).

This is not necessarily related to the version of JsUnit that is being 
used but more to do with the implementation of the builder objects and 
how test documents are chosen and loaded. In the straw man proposal I 
made in late May, I proposed an approach where the content type and 
implementation could be chosen. I believe that the ability to specify 
the content type and the implementation is crucial to a complete and 
fair test.

In addition, several tests make assumptions with regard the ability of 
the parser being used (validating vs non-validating etc.). The current 
tests do not make it clear whether a particular test may or may not be 
supported by the particular implementation being tested.

Finally, the current test framework skips certain tests which are not 
appropriate for the current test environment but do not provide a report 
of what tests were skipped or why. The test framework should report on 
any such skipped tests.

/bc
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 16:08:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:47 GMT