- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:50:22 +0100
- To: frans.englich@telia.com
- CC: public-xqts-comments@w3.org
Just to be clear, I said me> Having said that, I think that this interpretation is really justified me> by the Catalogue markup But of course meant Having said that, I think that this interpretation is NOT really justified ^^^ by the Catalogue markup > As I see it, there is nothing to verify > since an implementation can do anything it chooses to. I agree that from a conformance point of view trace() can be a no-op so that the only thing that should be tested as part of a conformance or interoperability test is the query result (which can be mechanically tested with xml comparison). However officially the W3C doesn't go in for conformance testing of particular systems and the purpose of the suite as far as getting out of CR is concerned is to show that the features are implementable, and as a general test of "have I implemented all features" I don't mind having a few tests that make some calls on trace() and I check by hand that they end up in the standard error stream (or wherever I think they should go). > So, let's say the tests are of type 'Inspect' in order to somehow verify/test > the trace output, it currently happens at the cost of that the data output is > not fully verified (well, it depends on inspection). Yes I agree, it would be better to use XML comparison on the expected output and have another element <expected-trace> or something which you could additionally verify by hand, or something.... David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 12:51:19 UTC