A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I’ve been meaning to add some aggressive tests which use xml:base values that differ drastically from the nearby alternate URIs in order to smoke out such coincidentally passing tests, as well as some intentionally evil tests with `type="xhtml"` where xml:base is set on elements inside the xhtml:div. I expect to see a lot of aggregators fall from grace with such an expanded test suite.
Yep. I've run tests like that. Haven't found a single aggregator (including my own) that handled xml:base on the xhtml:div or deeper.
I find the collection of tests we have so worryingly minimal; a lot of the currently lesser used corners of the format are not being tested at all.
Agreed. For various political reasons I don't want to get involved with test creation, but I do contribute results when I get a chance (I suspect more than half the xml:base results were added by me). I think you might get more involvement if the tests were easier to use though. By that I mean tests that say exactly how they should be interpreted and that you can see at a glance whether you've got a pass or failure. Having to click through links to see if they are valid can get a bit tiresome when you've trying to evaluate 16 tests on 20 different aggregators.