- From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:27:28 -0400
- To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
- Cc: <rivello@nist.gov>
Okay -- we'll take another look at these tests. --Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com> To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:42 PM Subject: Tolerance for using a PI to represent the XML declaration > The following tests assume that the TEST-STYLE PI is the > first child node of the document (that is that the XML > declaration not being represented as a processing instruction): > > NodeProcessingInstructionNodeType > NodeProcessingInstructionNodeAttributes > NodeProcessingInstructionNodeName > NodeProcessingInstructionNodeValue > ProcessingInstructionGetTarget > ProcessingInstructionGetData > > NodeProcessingInstructionNodeType will succeed for the two > processors tested (MSXML 3 and Oracle XML Parser for Java 2) > that do use a pseudo-PI for the XML declaration. Attributes > will fail for MSXML 3 since it apparently contains entries for > the "encoding", "version" and "standalone" pseudo-attributes > instead of being the expected null. The other tests will fail > since they will retrieve the "target" and "data" of the XML > declaration instead of the expected PI. > > In my JUnit implementation of the test suite, a configuration > switch can specify to use variants of these tests that > tolerate the XML declaration being represented as a PI. > > I would recommend that these tests be rewritten in a manner > that can tolerate the presence of a node for the XML declaration > and that a separate test be added if using a node for the XML > declaration is a non-conformant behavior. > >
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 10:26:11 UTC