Re: [xsl] functions and XSLT

Subject: Re: [xsl] functions and XSLT
From: Colin Muller <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:34:44 +0800
Jeni Tennison wrote:

> Yesterday, I suggested a complicated third way that would involve
> having a core of peer-reviewed, tried and tested functions within each
> module. Other functions could be added as per David's suggestion, so
> that they're available quickly, but these would only be moved into the
> core following review (on version changes).

If you based the repository around conformance tests, you'd partly
remove the need for human review of version changes and new
implementations. If no function (and associated implementation/s) is
added to the repository without at least an alpha version of a
conformance test for it (which could be as simple as xml, xsl and
expected output), then  people wanting to make use of an implementation
can easily check for themselves whether any implementation passes
version x.y of the test, and the test can progress towards a version 1.0
as implementations reveal its weak spots and these are patched. The test
version number in this scenario is more important than any
implementation version number. This could reduce (somewhat at least) the
workload on the reviewers needed to achieve what you suggest above, and
so speed up the process of adding implementations to the repository -
and increase users' confidence in what the repository provides. Sort of
like regression testing, and very much like XP's unit tests.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread