Andrew,
My apologies, I missed the footnote in my initial reading of your
original message. The two points I was trying to make were:
1. there are (generally speaking) two kinds of testing that need to
be performed on stylesheets:
a) Black-box testing of the whole stylesheet, and
b) Unit (white-box) testing of the functions/named templates.
2. both of these testing concepts apply to XSLT 1.0 just as much as to
2.0.
Regards,
Steve Ball
On 17/12/2007, at 8:31 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
On 16/12/2007, Steve Ball <Steve(_dot_)Ball(_at_)explain(_dot_)com(_dot_)au>
wrote:
On 14/12/2007, at 11:31 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
Personally I don't think you can unit test XSLT*, it's only really
worthwhile to test the output for a given set of inputs.
You can certainly unit test functions, as Mike Kay points out
If you include the starred footnote along with the quote, you'll see
that I said that:
"* Maybe with 2.0 and user defined functions it might be worthwhile,
but to ensure your transforms are doing the right thing, I think the
only approach it to check the output for a given set of inputs."
It's a bit off to quote something that references a relevant footnote
and not include the footnote itself.
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--