- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:31:15 -0500
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFCD76C810.EAEEEF40-ON85257546.00533BEA-85257546.005541ED@us.ibm.com>
TestCaseImpl... generated from the xml contained in the zip Kumar emailed last night. Formatting changes since last time: 1. added row number after test case name to make it easier to refer back to xlsx when needed 2. completely blank lines suppressed 3. counts of total, blank, non-blank lines added at end Net: we have 145 tests in the current xlsx. The XSLT flags 8 lines as in need of attention: 19: MS result is blank. If we go with the "as test case is currently coded in cosmos cvs" approach to expected results, the expected result is INvalid, which should match MS's result given Kumar's remarks. I verified there is a bug in cosmos causing it to skip XML schema validation on this test (no target namespace + no aliases triggers it; since the majority of the tests have a target namespace, this should be a fairly isolated case). 29: Multiple sml:uri's in one reference, so if we are consistent with earlier decisions we will remove this row. 76, 77, 96-99 flagged because their primary feature is xmlbase and we have not fully resolved the optional features approach, although we have a proposal to discuss. I did look through them, and (as currently coded in cvs) the expected results for an implementation -not- supporting xml:base should be (I think :-): 76: invalid (a relative SML reference exists and xml:base is the only mechanism used to specify the base URI, -and- the relative ref is in an element governed by sml:targetRequired=true) 77: valid (unresolved but not targetRequired) 96-99: valid (some same as 77, some same-doc refs, some have no relative ref anyway) For this latter list, 77+96-99, we should add remarks to suggest cosmos alter the tests so a non-supporting impl would find the model invalid. As Kumar said, if they do so later we can always revise the impl test report and point to the revised testcases with different results. I am also attaching the features report (unchanged, since there has been little discussion of the proposal for how to deal with optional features - hint hint). If we achieve consensus on the "as currently coded" approach and report results for all impls against all test cases, we still need MS results on 6 rows (use the filter in the xlsx column header to see them, de-selecting T and F). Best Regards, John Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601 Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787
Attachments
- text/html attachment: SMLTestCaseImplementationResults20090122.html
- text/html attachment: SMLFeatureImplementationReport.html
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 15:31:59 UTC