- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:23:33 +0200
- To: "'David Brownell'" <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
The design actually anticipates this: If we were to end up in a situation where there are different interpretations of the specification, the DOM WG representative will be the person to either discuss this with the submitting party, or take it to the WG for clarification. The test is in the meanwhile frozen while being considered by either the DOM WG rep. or the DOM WG. In either case the test remins as is, so there seems to be no need to separate documentation from the actual test. Please tell me if I haven't convinced you. Could you perhaps provide the olist with an example? /Dimitris -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net] Skickat: den 18 maj 2001 20:41 Till: Dimitris Dimitriadis; 'Curt Arnold'; xmlconf-developer@lists.sourceforge.net; www-dom-ts@w3.org Ämne: Re: [Xmlconf-developer] Updated domtest.xsd and simple attr.xml > This would keep > the metadata in a distinct file from the test in a format that was > compatible with RDF and provides both a DTD and an attempt at an XML schema > for the metadata. One of the advantages of keeping the metadata distinct > from the test definitions is that it is then easy to add additional > description, notes, translations, without modifying the test definitions. I think it's good to keep the test cases and the metadata (what's tested, is it a positive test, negative, xref to spec, etc) distinct. Among other things, the test cases shouldn't really change when interpretations get updated ... and since DOM hasn't really had a test suite before, then it seems likely to me that interpretations will be in flux for some time. - Dave
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 08:24:15 UTC