Re: Releasing Invisible XML

Hear, hear!

With regard to test suites, however, I have a couple of qualifying
notes. I agree that we should not commit to “includ[ing] a complete
test suite as part of such a release”, but by the time of XML Prague 
(and, I hope, much much sooner)  I hope to have a test suite for ixml 
that meets at least relatively modest completeness criteria:

    . on the positive side: for each construct in the ixml grammar, 
at least one instance in at least one positive test case; 
for each choice in the grammar, at least one instance of each branch
in a positive test case; option, repeat0, and repeat1 treated as
choices among empty, single occurrence, and multiple occurrences)

    . on the negative side:  a systematic set of negative test cases
generated from a regular approximation of the grammar

This won’t count as ‘complete’ by stringent standards, I think, so it
won’t be a “complete test suite”, only a more or less systematic one.
Trying to make it complete by higher standards is not a high priority
for me in the next three months.

Also, it will be a test suite created by one implementor, not a test
suite created or endorsed by the community group.  Having the
community group look at and improve my tests should not be a high
priority for the community group in the next three months.

I think it would be helpful if we could use my test suite to gather test 
reports for known processors, as part of the curated list of processors
mentioned by Tom.

Michael


> On 23,Nov2021, at 10:30 AM, Tom Hillman <tom@expertml.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Recently we have heard from a number of would-be users in the XML community that invisible XML is somewhat... invisible!
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this, of course, in my opinion chiefly because:
>  • iXML has been a proposal rather than a released specification for such a long time (no criticism intended!)
>  • There have not been readily available, useful and/or publicised implementations of iXML that are available for those users.
> I also note that XML Prague has now been confirmed, and that a call for papers has been announced: https://www.xmlprague.cz/cfp/.
> 
> So, I would like to propose that we ought to set ourselves a goal of releasing (and announcing) a version 1 of the iXML specification at XML Prague, preferably as an addition to the agendum for the meeting on the 14th of December.  This should give us time to work towards a proposal for the January meeting in time for consensus as to whether or not we will be able to do so in time for XML Prague!
> 
> I think that there are a few requirements that we should set ourselves for such a release:
>  • Include some rudimentary rules about pragmas: at least enough so that conforming parsers can ignore the pragma information.  This depends on the pragma proposal that Michael and I are working on, that we are intending to complete and present for the December meeting.  It also decouples any functionality that may be provided by pragma from the specification itself.
>  • Publish a visible, curated and maintained list of all known parsers, perhaps with some indication of conformity to follow at a later date (see below).
>  • Reach agreement that the specification is releasable.
> I *don't* think we ought to include a complete test suite as part of such a release; we should aim for this to follow soon afterwards: I'm sure there will be other conferences to aim for!
> 
> Can we add this to the agenda for the next meeting, please?  And are there any comments that folks would like to make in addition to my own looking forward to that meeting?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> _________________
> Tomos Hillman
> eXpertML Ltd
> +44 7793 242058

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2021 19:35:45 UTC