[Bug 3540] comments on guidelines (editorial)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3540

           Summary: comments on guidelines (editorial)
           Product: XML Query Test Suite
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XML Query Test Suite
        AssignedTo: andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com
        ReportedBy: davidc@nag.co.uk
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


I started to make some comments in bug #3532 but that's probably the wrong
place for editorial comments, so I opened another report.

These comments are on the guidelines cvs version 1.22

I think that the whole section "Customizing Namespaces" should be removed.
All tests using schema import have now been removed from the minimal
conformance section, and the tests that do use schema import, changing it to a
namespace declaration will not produce the expected result.

the section on module location hints says

 The "at" keyword specifies an optional location hint. Location Hints can be   
  interpreted or disregarded in an implementation-dependent way. An
implementation can choose to use any of the location hints, or none at all.

which is more or less what it has to say, given the specification, but as noted
in bug #3003, some of the tests assume that all the location hints are used (as
they test for duplicated declarations) I think the guidelines need to allow
implementors testing a system that would only use one location hint to 
rewrite the query to use a URI to a system specific module which has done the
merge "by hand". 



Customizing XQueryX Tests The example XQueryX is not valid  xqx:external may
not take content. (first reported in bug #2400)

in Comparing Results
you say

  Error: The expected result of the test case is and error, identified as an   
 eight-character error code (e.g., XPST0003). The result of a test is true, if
the implementation raises an error.

apart from the typo "and error" which should read "an error" Am I correct to
read this as saying that it is _not_ necessary to check that exactly the
correct
error code is produced. My current test harness checks the codes but classes
the test as a pass anyway, adding a comment if the codes are different. I
thought I was doing that incorrectly and was planning to classify these as
failures but if it is OK to classify these as pass, that is good (for me).

Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 10:46:31 UTC