By the way: The NIST DOM tests are being taken over by the DOM Working
Group, and combined with tests submitted from other sources. As part of
that process, they're being reviewedto make sure they really are correct
and reasonable; some definitely have open issues against them.
For more details,
> >The DOM spec states that negative values for the count value should throw
> an INDEX_SIZE_ERR
> >exception. In Xerces-C, the arguments are defined as unsigned int which
> results in
> >the negative values in the tests being interpreted as very large values.
>
> If the binding defines the argum
>The DOM spec states that negative values for the count value should throw
an INDEX_SIZE_ERR
>exception. In Xerces-C, the arguments are defined as unsigned int which
results in
>the negative values in the tests being interpreted as very large values.
If the binding defines the arguments as unsi
"Thanks for the reference, it does appear that the issue was settled in the
DOM WG. I would have personally leaned the other way, preferring to detect
and throw an exception when an expression has
resulted in a negative count instead of interpreting it as a
platform-dependent large number. I pers
Thanks for the reference, it does appear that the issue was settled in the DOM WG. I
would have personally leaned the other way, preferring to detect and throw an
exception when an expression has
resulted in a negative count instead of interpreting it as a platform-dependent large
number. I pe
)
Subject: Re: DOM conformance tests
04/24/2001 12:10
AM
The use of unsigned values for
the counts come straight from the IDL in the W3C DOM interfaces. The use of signed values in
the DOM Java bindings is because
of the limitations of the Java language; there's no point in having signed
counts in C++.
int vs long for the C++ counts is a
ques
If C++'s action on trying to cast a negative int to an unsigned int was an
exception, then using unsigned int's in the parameter list could be a good
thing. But since you would expect that the count would often be calculated
by some expression that would involve subtraction, having a bunged
expre
"n a perfect world, it would probably be best to remove the unsigned
qualifiers from he arguments so that the behavior would parallel that of the
Java implementation."
Do we really want to adopt Java limitations like that, just to make those
few tests pass? Its really just a shortcoming of Java t
I was able to port the NIST Java DOM test suite to
JUnit and
then on to CppUnit for Xerces-C.
The source is in the CVS
of xmlconf.sourceforge.net (http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=8114)
but I haven't updated the site.
Running the tests resulted in three conformance errors. One is a le
10 matches
Mail list logo
