- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:42:50 -0400
- To: "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'" <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
My one hesitation with this proposal is that, when I've tried to craft nontrivial testcase scripts in XML in the past, I've found myself either (a) unrolling any logic in the test to turn it into a flat series of operations, which makes the script both huge and hard to read, or (b) trying to write a fairly complete programming language in XML syntax, in order to handle the conditionals/logic/variables... which snowballs rapidly into a much larger project than the tests themselves. If we assume that programming languages are inherently fairly regular, it may be possible to write a simple XML-based pseudocode language which can be "blindly" translated into specific languages. But I suspect that larger tests are likely to push the boudaries of this approach as they start to require non-DOM programming activity to generate/manuipulate/validate the information... and it does mean an ongoing effort to maintain and develop the test language and its mappings. It's definitely worth looking at. But I won't be surprised or terribly disappointed if it turns out that human porting of many (most?) testcases is needed after all. If programming languages were really that similar, we wouldn't generate quite so many of them. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 11:43:35 UTC