- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:38:35 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
hello james.
On 2015-03-31 8:14 , James M Snell wrote:
> I've been giving some thought to how we can design and develop a test
> framework for the Activity Streams 2.0 format. Here are some initial
> thoughts.
>
> [....]
>
> This example case can be improved but it illustrates the point: Given
> a set of commonly understood Activity statements, producing
> implementations would be expected to produce consistent AS2.0
> serializations that consuming implementations would be capable of
> consistently handling.
>
> The downside is that this approach can become fairly complicated but
> there's really no other way we can do it.
>
> Thoughts?
i like this approach a lot, and i think it is the right way to go
but i think it should be extended to also cover test cases and their
expected results when extensions come into play. the extension points we
have are (probably) verbs/actions, object types, and properties (at
least this is what we currently use in ASDL as AS1 extension points).
the interesting question is: if those extension points are used, how are
they reported to applications using AS2 implementations? that's
basically what's raised in ISSUE-12, ISSUE-13, and ISSUE-16 (and
possibly others).
in the end, this circles back to the (still missing) "extension model"
and "processing model" sections of the spec. how can i use AS2 beyond
the base schema, and what behavior can i expect when i do this? it comes
back to the idea of an "AS2 infoset", or whatever we might call the
abstract model.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 19:39:03 UTC