Updated domtest.xsd and simple attr.xml

> I have to admit that I do prefer the IDL definitions to any
> language-specific def's.
> This keeps the tests language neutral, and differences could 
> be handled in
> individual transformations.

It wasn't intended to show favoritism to Java, it was just trying
to work within the limitations of XML validation and I thought
that it was better to resemble the Java binding than to resemble
nothing at all.  I can extend the schema tonight to have both IDL and
Java like accessors and mutators, and we could determine if we want 
to remove one or the other based on experience.

Using a distinct accessors and mutation elements in no way compromises
the ability to produce ECMAScript code, it is just in this one aspect,
the distinct "testing language" more closely resembles Java and C++
than it does IDL and ECMAScript.


> Curt, are you thinking of making this work availabe under the 
> GNU license,
> or
> as contributing it as part of the W3C test suite effort, 
> which is destined
> to be
> under a W3C license?

The terms of using SourceForge is that I have to assert a copyright
and an acceptible Public license on code developed using their service.
However, the fact that I have released work under the GPL,
does not prevent me from contributing that work to the W3C (though it
would prevent someone else from donating it).

If the consensus is to adopt the schema, then we would need to take
the proper steps to make the IPR compatible with the rest of the effort.

Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 16:08:17 UTC