- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:57:42 +0200
- To: "'Mary Brady'" <mbrady@nist.gov>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
comments inlined -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov] Skickat: den 31 maj 2001 18:02 Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org Ämne: Re: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se> To: "'Mary Brady'" <mbrady@nist.gov>; <www-dom-ts@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: SV: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML > I think we should create a thread to discuss exactly what vocabulary we > intend to produce. Generating directly from the schema lets us use the > native inerface and method names. I'd like to see that we do this. > Okay --here's a start-- * Use IDL for attribute / method names [dd] OK * Specify var's, parameters, and returnTypes according to the spec: Spec always --> required in the schema Spec sometimes --> optional in the schema Spec never --> should not appear in the schema [dd] sounds fine to me. I don't quite understan how we infer the 'sometimes' though * Interface name -- should be inferable from somewhere, or defined as an attribute on the method name - defaulted as an attribute in cases where it is unambiguous - one of a list if it is available in more than one place. [dd] ok. how does this sound to you, curt? * Exceptions -- correspond according to the spec -- ie, only be able to specify the particular exceptions that can be thrown on a given attribute or method. [dd] these could even be defined upfront in the schema as per the dom spec instead ofhaving to write them out. pointing should do. any others ... > For the rest I propose the following for immediate action: > > 1. separate the dom ts ml generating parts from the language construct parts > in the schema > 2. write a simple app to run the xsl against all dom source files > 3. collect the schema snippets into one file, or create a master schema > (perhaps with the constructs and the packaging/suite info) and include the > other files. > Does any of this still need to be done? I have some cycles that I can spend ... Later today, I should be able to put out a NIST Test Matrix Table, that indicates what tests we have for a given interface. This is a first pass, much of which has been automatically generated -- it still needs work, but will give everyone an idea of the kind of coverage we have to offer. [dd] Good, thanks. Then we'll have a doog idea of how many and what kind of tests we need to supply the suite with before release.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 13:58:06 UTC