- From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:50:42 -0500
- To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote: > > All, > > I'd like to do a survey on how things stand in order to estimate how > much more work we need before being able to release the next version > of the DOM TS. Most activity of late has been in connection with HTML > tests, and not so much the DOM TS framework. > > 1. HTML. What is the count of tests for L1/2? Have they been checked > for correctness? I've gotten HTML L1 down to what I think are true implementation bugs. Rick was supposed (and probably has) mirrored the changes into the HTML L2. > 2. Framework. I've informed the DOM WG that we've started working on a > new framework and invited the member companies to provide feedback on > the new framework. Are there particular issues Bob and Edward would > like help with? When do you expect to be able to run the new framework > with the old tests? There is currently a fork in the JSUnit work. About a month ago, I updated test-to-ecmascript.xsl, the support files and provided a hacked version of the initial JSUnit 1.3 alpha that would run the tests. While I was in the death throes of getting that ready, Bob issued a revised JSUnit 1.3. I had asked Bob to review the generated tests and my hacked JSUnit and suggest a path forward, but didn't get any feedback. I like the way the tests are currently rendered and in general, like the modifications that I made to JSUnit. However, I did the JSUnit mods quick and dirty and may have broken something, so I'd suggest incrementally working in the changes and making sure that existing non TS tests still run. > > > There are a few more issues that I've taken up with the DOM WG, in > particular: > > 1. Tests for particular modules. We've discussed having tests written > for the modules by those responsible for producing them (the member > companies whose representatives prdocue the specifications). > 2. DOM TS Group involvement: I've raised the issue of not having a > very balanced division of labour (as indicated earlier in a series of > postings to this list) which in turn means that we cannot ensure that > all implementations will run smoothly with the new framework. > > Any other issues? > > /Dimitris > >
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 01:50:48 UTC