Re: some questions about version information in the test suite

On 13 Jun 2010, at 10:27 , C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

> ...
>
> Q4 Can these problems be fixed?
>
> I believe the simplest and best fix would be to (1) allow
> 'expected' to repeat, (2) eliminate the implDe attribute,
> and (3) change the enumerated values of expected/@validity
> from 'valid, invalid, notKnown' to 'valid, invalid, notKnown,
> impl-defined, impl-dependent, unspecified' (where 'unspecified'
> covers (a) cases where the version of the spec in question
> is underspecified or vague, (b) where it is overspecified and
> contradicts itself, and (c) where the WG cannot agree on what
> the text of that version of the spec means -- in principle it
> would be useful to disentangle these, but that might lead to
> interminable wrangling over how to classify individual
> cases).

Further to this point, I've prepared a new schema document for
the test suite vocabulary, which makes these changes as well as
a few others to address other problems I've encountered.  It
may be found at

http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/xsdl-exx/ancillary/xsts-schema.sketch.xml

Comments are welcome.  The schema document is constructed in
such a way that it should be relatively easy to read in a
Web browser.

In due course I expect to submit this to the WG for formal approval,
but first I want to confirm that the new schema leaves all of the
existing testSet documents valid (with the exception of the three
elements in msMeta/Element_w3c.xml and msMeta/Particles_w3c.xml to
which the implDe attribute has been applied, and which would need to
be changed again for the new schema).

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:08:52 UTC