Re: [xsl] W3C Test Suites

Subject: Re: [xsl] W3C Test Suites
From: "Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:21:26 -0000
The XSLT3, QT3, and XSD11 test suites are all now on GitHub under the w3c
project, under informal "community" management. There are (lightweight and
informal) readme files suggesting how changes should be handled. I have commit
access to all three and am very happy to consider pull requests. If a change
is uncontroversial (for example, adding a new test, or adding metadata to note
that an existing test is dependent on an implementation-defined feature of the
environment, such as a specific Unicode version or the range of supported
dates) then I will accept the change without formality. If the proposed change
challenges the correctness of the expected results of an existing test then I
will look for evidence of some kind of community consensus that the change is
correct. Use the GitHub issues mechanism for discussion and resolution of such

We in Saxonica have been adding a steady trickle of new tests since the WGs
ceased operation. Most of these derive from bug reports received from Saxon
users; in a few cases we have identified that a particular area is
under-tested and have tried to remedy this.

Michael Kay

> On 12 Sep 2019, at 02:01, Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Because we are discussing "quality of work" in this thread (among other
things), here is a question:
> Can anyone provide new tests to be added to the test suites? If so, how to
do this? Where is this described?
> Thanks,
> Dimitre
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2019, at 00:04, Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 22:03 +0000, Dimitre Novatchev
>> dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Why on
>>> earth did they provide **this** implementation and not something
>>> better
>> Two plausible reasons - the person who wrote it did so before some of
>> the other XPath 3 features had settled down or been agreed upon, or,
>> they simply didnt attach much importance to it.
> Sadly, I am unable to research an answer to historical questions, because I
no longer have member access to W3C's archives.
> The likely reason, though, will be a negative: the spec is the way it is
because no-one (either within or outwith the WG) saw a problem with it.
> In my years of doing standards work I was always impressed by the quality of
scrutiny that proposals were subjected to. It's far higher than the level I
have ever experienced with internal product specifications in any company I
have worked for. Sometimes, indeed, it could be frustrating that we spent
entire meetings discussing arcane edge cases. The quest for perfection results
in incredibly slow progress getting specs completed. But the process is not
perfect, and the resulting specifications are not perfect either. The main
reason for that is simply resources: the longer a standards group carries on,
the harder it becomes to persuade people to commit their time to it.
> Frankly, if this is the biggest problem that people can find, then we did a
remarkably good job.
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
> XSL-List info and archive <>
> EasyUnsubscribe <> (by
email <applewebdata://36A5D7F3-87D6-46A3-AF67-DCF2C93C0A84>)
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
> -------------------------------------
> Never fight an inanimate object
> -------------------------------------
> To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
> biggest mistake of all
> ------------------------------------
> Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
> -------------------------------------
> You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
> -------------------------------------
> To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
> -------------------------------------
> Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
> -------------------------------------
> Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write
all patents, too? :)
> -------------------------------------
> Sanity is madness put to good use.
> -------------------------------------
> I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.
> XSL-List info and archive <>
> EasyUnsubscribe <> (by
email <>)

Current Thread