Re: Allowing multiple result on the XProc test suite

Any follow up on this ?

Mohamed

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:

> Florent,
>
> You got it right : the empty <b/> element is the only difference
>
> But there is two questions folded here :
> * Do we think there may be multiple allowed answer to such question ?
> * If so, then we should enhance the testsuite
> * If not, then we should choose which is the good one
>
> Mohamed
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>wrote:
>
>> On 12 September 2012 15:29, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>> > This base64 text
>> > [...]
>> > Into this HTML string
>> > [...]
>> > and then many XProc implementation agree on converting this to
>> > [...]
>> > HTML LIVE DOM says that it must be
>> > [...]
>> > Which would make Calabash be the only to answer correctly
>>
>> > How do we deal with this
>> > 1) We say Calabash is right and fix the test
>> > 2) We keep saying Calabash is wrong
>> > 3) We say Both are right and add a way to put it into the testsuite
>>
>>   I am not sure to understand what the problem is.  If I am right, the
>> base 64 part is not relevant, this is only about how the decoded,
>> ill-formed HTML markup is parsed into an XML document, right?
>>
>>   Between the excerpt you've shown an the one on Live DOM, the only
>> difference I can spot is the extra whitespace-only text node in EM
>> around B.  Is there anything else?
>>
>>   Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Florent Georges
>> http://fgeorges.org/
>> http://h2oconsulting.be/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €