- 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