RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

All,

 

Lofton has already commented on the contents of forrest.zip (lineAnimation).

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00052.html

 

Here are my comments on the contents of ben.zip (setGetBGColor, setGetFillOffset, setGetTextStyles, setView001, and setView002). The first three are all the same metafile, which is a WebCGM 1.0 metafile. MetaCheck reports three distinct errors:

 

1) Arial used in Font List without a Font Properties element.

2) subpara APS without APS type of 'para' as parent.

3) An empty layer.

 

#1 As Lofton has previously pointed out, this can be fixed by changing the font name to Helvetica or adding the Font Properties element.

#2 The parent APS in this case is a grobject. The problem can be fixed by changing the APS type from grobject to para.

#3 There is a layer APS at the beginning of the APS with a layername attribute of "Background." The layer is empty; i.e. the APS body has no elements in it. Interestingly, this is allowed in WebCGM 2.0,

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_2_1_2

 

but forbidden in WebCGM 1.0.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/REC-03-CGM-IC.html#webcgm_3_3

 

So, this problem could be fixed by either deleting the empty layer or changing the ProfileEd substring in the Metafile Description to 2.0.

 

Ulrich checked all the metafiles for WebCGM 1.0 conformance. The last two metafiles in the group, setView001 and setVIew002, are in fact conforming WebCGM 2.0 metafiles. I've included the MetaCheck trace output for each one in the attached ZIP file. In my opinion, nothing needs to be done to these last two metafiles.

 

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Ulrich Lasche [mailto:ulrich@cgmtech.de]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:56 AM
To: 'WebCGM'
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance

All,

 

We have finished our review of the assigned test cases and will send a more detailed report soon.  One general remark though:

 

I ran all 10 CGMs through MetaCheck with the WebCGM option and all files were incompliant.  The first error message:

 

"Error 6589: WebCGM 1.0 (2R) Profile Violation.

The METAFILE DESCRIPTION string is invalid; it lacks the phrase

"ProfileEd:1.0" required by the Profile."

 

is clear but still raises an issue.  All 10 files contain either ProfileEd:1.0 or 2.0.  In the test files that I constructed manually I put in ProfileEd:2.1 (see rotateAPS.txt).  Is this correct?

 

While this would be a cosmetic issue there are a number of additional errors in these files.  I am wondering if there is some compatibility issue between 1.0 and 2.1.  Could you please look into the MetaCheck reports (grouped into vendor specific zips) and tell me your opinion?

 

Thanks & regards

Ulrich

ben.zip