- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:49:10 +0300
- To: bclary@netscape.com (Robert Clary)
- Cc: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
comments inlined On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 09:52 PM, Robert Clary wrote: > > 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 ? > [dd] We've discussed this in the past and I agree that it is important to host the tests/harness somewhere easily accessible. In the past, W3C said they could host this, so I think we can suppose they still can (otherwise we'll come up with an alternative). The only thing I would like to stress is that the hosted version be functionally equivalent to the built version, once released, in order to not have differences between various DOM TS. > /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 Friday, 19 July 2002 07:48:21 UTC