p.s. lineAnimation status to 'reworking'

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

P.S. for Forrest -- we have returned the status to 'reworking'. 

There is the issue to discuss in the TC about the limit of
"8".  If your test could work around that for now, and fix
the Text Precision, then we could advance it to TAP, I reckon.

Okay?

-Lofton.

At 11:55 AM 3/26/2009 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

Stuart --

Please put this on your next TC agenda.

Forrest, All -- any comments? 

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 01:54 PM 3/23/2009 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:

For question #2 I think that a limit of 8 might be a bit restrictive.  I am not sure what would be a
reasonable upper limit.

--
Stuart Galt
SGML Resource Group
stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
(206) 544-3656

 

---

From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:39 AM

To: 'WebCGM'

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

[...comments in 3 parts, for Forrest, All, and Ulrich/All...]

Ulrich's review (of 'lineAnimation"):

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00038.html

Forrest -- are you able to fix the issues that Ulrich pointed out in his review?

-----

All -- here is what MetaCheck complained about, and I have a question about #2:

1.) ProfileEd is 2.0

2.) nbr of entries in dash-gap list exceeds 8

3.) text precision must be 'stroke'

We have already dealt with #1, and I think #3 is trivial and ought to be easily fixable.

Question about #2:  "8" is just the Model Profile value.  Is it okay?  Or does someone want to argue for a higher value?  Note that Forrest's metafile just repeats 4..1..4..1..... for a long time, and ends with 46.  Does this hint at some strategy for these new, cheap-animation capabilities, that argues for more generous limits?  Or could the same thing be accomplished within the limit of "8"?

Ulrich, All -- what about the content and presentation of the test?  Aok?  Or does someone have suggestions (other than metacheck's syntax issues).

-----

-Lofton.

At 03:55 PM 3/18/2009 +0100, =?us-ascii?Q?Ulrich_Lasche?= wrote:

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php