From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2005-02-09 10:51:18
|
Peter Saint-Andre <st...@ja...> writes: > In article <m33...@Su...>, Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> > wrote: > >> xmlroff 0.3.1 is now available. Also new testsuite and testing >> packages and a new testresults package with the results of running >> xmlroff 0.3.1 on the testsuite. > > Thanks for your work on xmlroff. I discovered it just today and hope to > give it a whirl here soon. What help is needed on the project? (Note: I > am not a C coder, but could help with testing, XSLTs, etc.) Thank you for your offer. It is, of course, gratefully accepted. On the testing side, there are several thousand tests from NIST and elsewhere that could be incrementally added to the xmlroff test results once someone does the initial work of running them once and checking the result. On the XSLT side, I have a nagging irritation with the DocBook website stylesheets that wouldn't take much to fix. The 'spec-dump' module is all XSLT, but since you're avowedly not a C coder, it's unlikely that I could interest you in that. Mixing testing and XSLT, the 'testing' module could do with an overhaul. Its current limitations include: - It is hardcoded for producing PDF, but it should be possible to configure a test setup to produce and meaningfully compare PostScript output. - It is probably too hardcoded to running the tests from the directory containing the 'testing' perl scripts and stylesheets. Beyond running tests for both PDF and PostScript output, I need a test setup that I can run to compare the current xmlroff version against the previous release as well as keeping my current test setup that I continually run as I make changes to xmlroff. - The current setup to change between static reports and reports with forms is beyond clunky. - Updating results using the form in an individual report doesn't regenerate the individual report. - Now that Mozilla, etc. supports XSLT, the reports should be XML with styles applied rather than batch-generated HTML. - Currently the test results are all recorded in one file that conforms to the DTD developed for the XSL 1.0 Candidate Recommendation testing. That is useful if we ever need to exchange test result information, but it's unlikely that we will unless xmlroff implements any XSL 1.1 features for the XSL 1.1 Candidate Recommendation testing phase. As such, if the individual reports become XML, then it would be convenient if the test result information stayed in the individual files and the single testresults.xml file was just generated if and when required by merging the information from the individual XML files. - The look of the reports needs work. The choice is yours. Regards, Tony. p.s. If you're reading the xmlroff-list using gmane, you can configure your subscription so you're not also sent list posts as email. |