[cddlm] Notes from the meeting on 11/2/2005

[Milojicic, Dejan S]

Attendees: Ayla Dantes De Souza, Stuart Schaefer, Jun Tatemura, Dejan
Milojicic

Note takers: Dejan Milojicic & Steve Loughran

Interoperability update: Dejan spoke about interactions with Hiro, Cees,
this will be in progress for a while,a s we learn from IETF how they do
it.

Jun: discussed his unit tests, independent from Deployment APIs and
Component Model,

Stuart uses Nunit

Steve: Some interesting features of W3C testing; you know where tests
are coming from; Every test has a unique ID. 

Stuart took the RDF team approach; take documetns and spit them out as
valid output; so Stuart gets in CDL and oputs out the final compilation.
So he then compares what input and output is.

RDF: input and output.

-Stuart and Ayla do this

Proposed: test files for our content w/ input and output. Could machine
generate the output and manually verify that things match. 

 -test cases that we have. Inputs and output

Take the parsed documents, the intermediate representation. 

Print it out to see what it looks like. 

Simple resolution still has a Dom

Full resolution leads to a DAG and not a tree.  

Describing errors. 

We haven't defined how things fail, so cannot test for it. 

Agreed. 

 There is nothing to stop additional implementation-specific testing on
top.

  -if every test has a unique ID, then it's a matter of declaring extra
metadata about each test, such as 

Give the result document and declare

LAZY is not in scope. But we do need a standard way to represent a
partially faild. 

SmartFrog testing? They exist, but if there is to be another impl. then
those tests would need pulling out. 

Agreement 

Stuart wants more tangible things to send, so everyone is more
consistent. 

 -an example CDL for testing a system. 

 -Here are the commands to issue. 

Steve to run through and revise test plan w/ more stuff. 

Nov16th. 

Jun to do CDL tests

Steve plans to do an update on Nov 16th. 

Stuart to follow by December 1st.