- From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:24:39 +0100 (IST)
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On Mon, April 9, 2012 11:01 am, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 9 April 2012 10:53, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote: ... > I certainly like the idea of a small number of single > focus 'tests' or specs or whatever. ... >> For spec coverage, we could probably develop an XML format here. But I >> doubt that many implementors will participate here (think "exslfo"). I'm >> sure that tooling around this could add some value: product comparison, >> for example. But some implementors might not be interested to have that >> done publicly. OTOH, it's obviously a big desire on the user side when >> evaluating products. > > Yes, I too think this is doable, with much work and would benefit > the users, eventually the formatter writers. There is the XML format for the tests for the CR phases for XSL 1.0 and 1.1 and for the test results. At one point Carmelo Montanez expanded considerably on the test he did for XSL 1.0, but I don't know that I still have a copy. At various times, I've made scripts/stylesheets to make CR-format test definitions of DocBook test documents and FOP unit tests so I could run them with the xmlroff test framework (which can work with any command-line processor, BTW). The CR tests, and consequently the test definition format, were for testing that FOs and properties were implemented, so the test definition format and the test result format don't have a way to express that a test should fail/should have failed. Regards, Tony.
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 10:25:03 UTC