W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: DOM Testing framework?

From: Kartikaya Gupta <lists.w3@stakface.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:23:01 +0000
To: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1MRs5j-0006bR-RS@maggie.w3.org>
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:19:08 +0100, Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote:
> Kartikaya Gupta <lists.w3@stakface.com> wrote:
> > What's wrong with HTMLFrameElement09? It references the frame.html file
> > which has a title of "NIST DOM HTML Test - FRAME", which is correct (at
> > least in the Java version).
> That looks like a fixed version of the test.

Ah, you're right. I looked in our revision history and there were a number of other changes made/tests fixed in the L2 HTML tests:

- element.xhtml and element.xml were missing a bunch of attributes on the <head> element
- font.xhtml and font.xml misspelled "helvetica" as "helvitica"
- heading.xhtml and heading.xml had align="right" instead of align="justify" for the <h4>
- pre.xhtml and pre.xml were missing width="277" on the <pre>
(in all of the above cases, the .html file of the same name had the required change)
- HTMLCollection02 and HTMLCollection10 were checking for "SELECT" instead of "select" (this may not matter for HTML, but does for X[HT]ML)
- HTMLFrameElement09 had, as you said, "FRAMESET" instead of "FRAME" in the title
- HTMLTableElement39 assumes the new row added at the end goes into the tbody when really it goes into the tfoot (the spec is ambiguous, but FF puts into the tfoot and I agree with that interpretation)
- HTMLDocument13 checks for a map element being returned in getElementsByName, which it shouldn't according to the DOM specs, since map is not listed as a form control in HTML4.01. Our implementation doesn't return the map in XHTML mode, so the test was modified to look for the text1 textarea instead. :)

> > > I also had to change a couple of the tests due to retrospective changes to
> > > the spec after the test suite was written.  The main two I can recall right
> > > now are the test that expects getAttribute() to return an empty string when
> > > the attribute doesn't exist (the spec was changed to say the return is null
> > > in this case),
> > 
> > Was it? I thought this was going into web DOM core. It's on the issues
> > list at http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core
> I thought it was raised as an erratum for DOM Level 2 Core specification.  I
> had no idea that there was an independent version of the DOM core
> specification being developed, although it looks to be in the very early
> stages.  I'm rather alarmed at its statement that it's going to "redefine
> some things" from the standard DOM core.

It's not in the L2 Core errata, at least not that I can find. I also don't like the fact that there's going to be a new DOM spec that's incompatible with the existing DOM specs. Then again, that seems to be all the rage these days - HTML5 is incompatible with all sorts of other specs as well, all for the sake of web compatibility.

Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 18:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:14 UTC