- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:26:49 +0100
- To: Murray Altheim <murray13@altheim.com>
- Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org
On 19 March 2013 23:30, Murray Altheim wrote: > On 20/03/13 10:51, Florent Georges wrote: >> On 19 March 2013 18:00, Romain Deltour wrote: Hi, >>> [...] or even better XSpec for XProc. >> I had such plans at some point [...] > Don't we just need a single extension step that can be extended > as necessary, or is there a longer set of requirements? I am not sure what extension step you talk about. The goal here would be to have a test suite format adapted to XProc, which would be executable by an XProc test suite tool (using whatever technique). Being able to define a mock step (or spy, or test double, or stub, or fake, or whatever you call it) would certainly be part of the test suite language, yes. The way it replaces the corresponding step would be an implementation strategy of the tool. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 23:27:40 UTC