Using fundamental/extended as an organization principle (was isSu pported12)

> [mb] I think you are missing the point.  This part of the 
> message has nothing to do with isSupported -- rather, when 
> researching what was meant by the feature "XML", how is it 
> different from "CORE", and what is really required, according 
> to the spec, we noted that "XML" is defined to be the set of 
> extended interfaces - in particular, CDATASection, Entity, 
> EntityReference, DocumentType, ProcessingInstruction, and 
> Notation.  I'm suggesting that all of these tests for 
> extended interfaces should be moved to a separate section, 
> other than core, and that we should categorize the tests 
> according to the features that are defined in the spec, 
> rather than putting both fundamental and extended tests under 
> core.  Then, our directory structure maps more intuitively to 
> the spec than it does currently

The distinction between fundamental and extended is less significant than the difference between tests that depend on parsing XML and those that depend on parsing HTML.

However, I think it is unlikely that we could write a significant body of tests for DOM core that would work on both an HTML and XML implementation.  So currently we have a body of tests for the DOM
L1 and L2 Core that pre-suppose the implementation can read XML.  So maybe we should have put the tests that depend on XML support in tests/level-1/core/xml and put html tests in
tests/level-1/core/html to avoid implying superiority over html.  And if we were able to write tests that could work on both we could put them in tests/level1/core.

However, I'd like to hold off discussing any directory structure change until we have had a chance to get the L2 stuff running.

Can you give us the status of the HTML DOM tests?

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 18:06:29 UTC