- From: Murray Altheim <murray13@altheim.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:30:14 +1300
- To: xproc-dev@w3.org
On 20/03/13 10:51, Florent Georges wrote:
> On 19 March 2013 18:00, Romain Deltour wrote:
>
>> XProc itself can be used to describe tests, but imho we'd be better
>> served with a dedicated syntax, à la XProc test suite or even better
>> XSpec for XProc.
>
> I had such plans a some point but, you know, priorities and such...
> But contributions welcome of course ;-)
Hi Florent,
Don't we just need a single extension step that can be extended as
necessary, or is there a longer set of requirements? If the latter,
what would be those requirements?
In my current project I've had to create a number of bespoke steps,
and I'm not clear where the difficulty is in what you all have been
describing. If it's *standardising* that test framework I understand;
if it's just doing it that doesn't seem very difficult (and therefore
I don't understand).
Cheers,
Murray
............................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray13 at altheim dot com> = = ===
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ === ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = ===
In the evening
The rice leaves in the garden
Rustle in the autumn wind
That blows through my reed hut.
-- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 22:31:13 UTC