Michael,

I think I get what you're asking. For public specifications (like those
offered by the W3C), there should be a common flow to conformance testing:
- run the implementation with the test document as the input
- compare the result against the expected test result
- repeat for all tests in the package

And it seems like that could be automated to some extent. Is that automated
process the "framework" you are alluding to? If so, I'm also curious as to
whether or not one exists! The Acid tests for CSS take that framework for
granted, since it is, after all, the browser rendering the test. Where else do
you think we could look for such a framework, if the W3C doesn't have a
publicly available one? (I'm coming up short for ideas on who else provides
public specifications for other companies to implement.)

It'd be nice if we could find or create an external one (for XSLT 2.0 engines
and some XSLT 1.0 engines, which largely reside as their own executable
files), and one that runs in the browser (for the XSLT 1.0 engines provided as
part of a browser, like Transformiix and Opera).

~ Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ludwig [mailto:mlu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:53 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] AltovaXML bugs? (and other engines)

I agree a publicly available test suite for both XSLT 1.0 and 2.0
would be an excellent facility.

Is there an established standard or pattern or best practice for
coding tests? A framework you would just drop a new test in so it
becomes part of the test suite?

Maybe the W3C has come up with such a framework and is willing to
make it a public resource for the advancement of the Good Cause
while continuing, of course, to withhold the test suite due to its
partly shady, or intraceable, origins?

Michael Ludwig