RE: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
Right now, I have a pice of code I would contribute. It would be useful, if there were an alternative e-mail address to that of the list, to collect the submitted code segments. Users could put this docu adress on CC, and you could filter the stuff to heap it up somewhere until it gets used. Matthias Fischer -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:49 AM To: Matthias Fischer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents) [...] In the meantime, I'd encourage users that find a bug or problem to send to this list the smallest possible XSL-FO document that demonstrates the problem. We could start collecting these in the hope of setting up a user-friendly demo/test suite when someone finds time to do it. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
On Tuesday 18 December 2001 09:59, Matthias Fischer wrote: Right now, I have a pice of code I would contribute. It would be useful, if there were an alternative e-mail address to that of the list, to collect the submitted code segments. ok, right now we don't have an alternative address available. I suggest that you post your code to the list, inline (not as an attachment) with [TESTDOC] in the subject line (I hope I'm not breaking an existing convention here). We can then find it easily in the mailing list archives. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
I'd prefer a more systematic approach: let's wait until the e-mail address exists. I fear a prefix, as you proposed, is not user-friendly enough. Before starting, we should also devise the smallest possible document into which users could then insert their functionning examples. This would make sure that everybody builds upon the same basis. It would make the samples more easily comparable. Matthias -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:20 AM To: Matthias Fischer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents) ok, right now we don't have an alternative address available. I suggest that you post your code to the list, inline (not as an attachment) with [TESTDOC] in the subject line (I hope I'm not breaking an existing convention here). We can then find it easily in the mailing list archives. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
As you have visited the site you will know the information here: http://xml.apache.org/fop/testing.html This is all the information. The plans are to get FOP to be able to run through all the tests first. Of course if more people were involved then someone could work on improving this. Maybe this could be used to produce an output of information that users could see. On 2001.12.17 08:07 Matthias Fischer wrote: Great! What are _your_ plans with regard to the material offered by W3C/Carmelo? How are tests conducted? Is there a check list according to which one could record/submit test results systematically? Do you think, the access of the database by FOP users (and not necessarily developers) can be enhanced in order to permit easier spotting of single test pieces relevant to a user's specific problem? These questions are what comes to my mind after heaving visited the site. Matthias -Original Message- From: Carmelo Montanez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Matthias Fischer Subject: Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents) Hi all: Regarding the FO test suite. We at NIST in conjunction with the W3C Developed a test suite for FO. The site is: www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ We are also working on expanding that work to include ALL of the basic aspects of the language. We expect to have close to 5000 tests by next march. Any contributions, ideas, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks Carmelo Montanez - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
On Monday 17 December 2001 09:07, Matthias Fischer wrote: What are _your_ plans with regard to the material offered by W3C/Carmelo? As mentioned by Keiron (see http://xml.apache.org/fop/testing.html), the current FOP tests are based on automatically comparing the ouput of two FOP revisions. This is needed to make sure new releases don't break existing features, but IMHO doesn't make it easy for end users to find out exactly how FOP interprets specific features. Again, I think what would help end-users a lot (and also have good tutorial value) would be small self-describing XSL-FO documents where one can check the results by reading the PDF, along with an official list of which samples work and which don't. Nice and well, but I don't think anyone on the FOP team currently has time to fully set this up (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong!). There are quite a lot of FOP samples already (http://xml.apache.org/fop/examples.html), some more useful than others, so maybe it's just a case of sorting through the samples, classifying them and making them easily accessible, ideally using a live Internet-accessible FOP setup. In the meantime, I'd encourage users that find a bug or problem to send to this list the smallest possible XSL-FO document that demonstrates the problem. We could start collecting these in the hope of setting up a user-friendly demo/test suite when someone finds time to do it. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
Thank you, Bertrand. -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:49 AM To: Matthias Fischer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents) [...] In the meantime, I'd encourage users that find a bug or problem to send to this list the smallest possible XSL-FO document that demonstrates the problem. We could start collecting these in the hope of setting up a user-friendly demo/test suite when someone finds time to do it. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
On Friday 14 December 2001 10:05, Matthias Fischer wrote: However, you won't escape big maintenance so easily: Right - maintaining such a test suite is not light work. The advantage over pure documentation, however, is that both users and developers directly benefit from having strong test documents. So I think it would be easier to get the FOP community to work on building such a test suite (or organize/document existing tests) than finding someone to write and maintain documentation. -- -- Bertrand Delacrétaz, www.codeconsult.ch -- web technologies consultant - OO, Java, XML, C++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
Hi all: Regarding the FO test suite. We at NIST in conjunction with the W3C Developed a test suite for FO. The site is: www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ We are also working on expanding that work to include ALL of the basic aspects of the language. We expect to have close to 5000 tests by next march. Any contributions, ideas, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks Carmelo Montanez - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Basic aspects (big fat list vs. live test documents)
On Thursday 13 December 2001 15:35, Matthias Fischer wrote: . . . My whish to Santa Clause this year: A big fat list containing all major graphic formats and the FO/FOP-related aspects that concern them. . . . I'm skeptical: to me big fat list means big maintenance work and usually out-of-sync list. I'd rather have many small, focused, self-documented, numbered XSL-FO example files that show what works and what doesn't in FOP (note that I haven't looked at our test files for a while - maybe it's there already?). Maybe a live FOP system where users can post a ZIP containing XSL:FO + graphics files and get back the PDF? (got to tell Santa Claus about this one ;-) Such examples could be donated by users after they find that a particular feature works or not, with a standard mail header ([TESTDOC] ?) that would help committers sort out these files. Any thoughts? -- -- Bertrand Delacrétaz, www.codeconsult.ch -- web technologies consultant - OO, Java, XML, C++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
