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.


Reply via email to