- From: Robert Clary <bclary@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:52:03 -0400
- To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- CC: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
There is some use of some DOM methods in DOMTestCase.js however their use over the basic DOM 0 approaches is ok so long as the prerequisite that the user agent implement any required DOM methods/properties such as document.getElementById and HTMLIFrameElement.contentDocument is made clear so that other browser vendors know what will be required of them in order to be able to run the tests in the future. This includes the use of the non-standard HTMLIFrameElement.contentWindow. I believe the ability to host the tests on a web site where they will be accessible to all users/developers without the need for them to create the dom ts build environment is important. This includes a user interface for the customization and selection of individual tests. Where do we stand on this ? /bc Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote: > > OK, since it seems we have general agreement that the HTML parts of the > TS are stable (except if Rick protests), I'd suggest to point our energy > toward finalizing the framework. Bob, could you please respond to Curt's > request for review and make an agenda for what you want the rest of us > to do to help finish the framework? > > /Dimitris > > On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 08:50 AM, Curt Arnold wrote: > >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- Bob Clary, bclary@netscape.com Technology Evangelist, Netscape Communications http://developer.netscape.com/evangelism/
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 14:52:46 UTC