W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > August 2006

Re: [css] documentation for autotest

From: Jean-Guilhem Rouel <jean-gui@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:26:15 -0400
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1156861575.6312.14.camel@localhost>

Le mardi 29 août 2006 à 14:28 +0900, olivier Thereaux a écrit :
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 10:10 , jean-gui wrote:
> > That's a good question! It is implemented but not documented (in  
> > fact it is documented, through the example files ;)).
> Excellent. I edited the README a little, adding this. in CVS now.
> I've had a look at the source, and I really like what I see: it's  
> simple, it works, and more importantly, it uses a language-agnostic  
> (sort of) interface to the tool.

It's simple because it was the first time I was using the xml parsing
API (I don't remember it's name). I used this parser because I didn't
want to create an xml schema to use tools like JAXB even if the code
would be much simpler after that.

> I am starting to play with it and see if I can build the Markup  
> Validator's test suite with it - as some of you know I've had that on  
> my plate for ages, but never could "get" the architecture of  
> Test::Builder in perl. As far as I can tell from looking at the  
> source, the main modification would be to make the validator's URI a  
> possible parameter, and then a couple of modifications for when the  
> validation call parameters differ, but that's about it.
> Very cool. I only wish I had had a look at that code earlier, when  
> Yves sent it to me.

As far as I remember, I wanted to do the same thing for the markup
validator, but it was not easy because there wasn't a direct input
method for the markup validator (this little tool reads the content of
each file and sends it in the URI). But an update seems to have added
it, so it should be possible now.
A good thing would be to change that behavior and send the whole file
but I didn't know how to do that (thanks to Unicorn, I know now :)). A
better thing would be to use unicorn to be sure that the behavior is the
same whatever the input method :)

Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 14:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:51 UTC