Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors

Hi Manos,

Thanks for the files.  Let me see if I understand how to
use these...First, you created a staff module, and pulled
it and the relevant xhtml modules together.  Then, you
have a staff.xml that conforms to the above.  But, because
it is just a sample, it only contains one employee -- it would
have to be updated to be compatible with the existing staff.xml.
You also supplied a stylesheet that can be used to translate staff.xml
to it's xhtml version.  Is there a way to translate to an html version?

So, in order to use this, I have to update staff.xml, and then translate
to xhtml and html.  But the advantage is that we do not have to do
hand translations...

Am I close?  If not, please let me know, as I would like to understand
this approach fully.

--Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
To: "Mary Brady" <mbrady@nist.gov>
Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:21 AM
Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors


> Where can I upload or send this? I can't just post it to the list; I've
used the directory structure as found in [1], ended up with 2.2 MB
(unzipped).
>
> [1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-m12n-schema-20011219/xhtml-m12n-schema.zi
p
>
> Manos
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
> > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:00 PM
> > To: Manos Batsis
> > Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors
> >
> >
> > Can you take a look at the existing files, under
> > /level1/core/files and give it a try?
> >
> > --Mary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> > To: "Mary Brady" <mbrady@nist.gov>
> > Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with HTML processors
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
> > >
> > > > Would this approach require that all processors would
> > have to support
> > > > XHTML Modularization?
> > >
> > > XHTML m12n is not something that a processor supports
> > explicitly; as with
> > any XML vocabulary, it depends on your needs.
> > >
> > > A browser for example can display an extended XHTML
> > document by treating
> > known XHTML elements as usual while determining the display
> > of the rest
> > based on style (CSS) or some default handling rules (i.e.
> > display the text
> > contained in them). Validation is not mandatory.
> > >
> > > Something more critical can validate such a document using
> > a DTD or Schema
> > that contains the XHTML modules along with the custom modules.
> > >
> > > With m12n, you can use one file to perform HTML dependent tests (for
> > example using HTML specific collections such as
> > document.forms) or raw XML
> > tests to non XHTML elements included in such a file while the
> > file is valid
> > (either as XML or XHTML).
> > >
> > > Kindest regards,
> > >
> > > Manos
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --Mary
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> > > > To: <bv@opera.no>; "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
> > > > Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:48 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > HTML processors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > XHTML test files must be valid to be XHTML in the first
> > > > place; technically
> > > > speaking though, there is a way to have valid XHTML just
> > by adding a
> > > > 'wrapper'[1] to the existing files while using XHTML
> > > > Modularization (either
> > > > in XML Schema [1] or DTD [2]). I would be very interested
> > to help if
> > > > something like that is chosen, especially if XML Schema
> > is involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] like
> > > > >
> > > > > <!DOCTYPE  bla>
> > > > > <html xmlns="myDomain/bla">
> > > > >    <head>
> > > > >       <title>
> > > > >          Untitled
> > > > >       </title>
> > > > >    </head>
> > > > >    <body>
> > > > >
> > > > > <!-- existing XML content -->
> > > > >
> > > > >    </body>
> > > > > </html>
> > > > >
> > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-m12n-schema-20011219/
> > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/
> > > > >
> > > > > Kindest regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Manos
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Bjørn Vermo [mailto:bv@opera.no]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:40 PM
> > > > > > To: 'www-dom-ts@w3.org'; Arnold, Curt
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Using existing staff.xml based tests with
> > > > HTML processors
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2002-03-06 18:36:21, "Arnold, Curt"
> > > > <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I was thinking that you could produce an close [X]HTML
> > > > > > analogue of staff.xml
> > > > > > >by doing a direct translation of each element in staff to a
> > > > > > distinct [X]HTML
> > > > > > >element with a similar content model.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Most of the elements simply contain PCDATA and have no
> > > > > > attributes, so you
> > > > > > >could make <employeeId> to <code> and <salary> to <pre>, etc
> > > > > > and could
> > > > > > >change <address domestic="">something</address> to <a
> > > > > > href="">something</a>,
> > > > > > ><employee> could go to <p>.  The only structural change
> > > > that would be
> > > > > > >changing <staff> to <html><body>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe it would be more useful to use constructs like <div
> > > > > > class="employeeid"> and <a class="domestic" href=2xx">
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Bjørn Vermo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:03:56 UTC