[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Test Review Results -- for Benoit
Ignore what I said about lime, I earlier agreed to "sub-lime."
Rob
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Robert Orosz [mailto:roboro@auto-trol.com]
- Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:38 PM
- To: 'Lofton Henderson'; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Cc: David Cruikshank
- Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Test Review Results -- for Benoit
- Lofton,
- The setview001 and setview002 tests can be advanced to TAP status (lime pending addition of a meta declaration to specify the character encoding).
- Regards,
- Rob
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
- Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:15 PM
- To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Cc: David Cruikshank
- Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Test Review Results -- for Benoit
- Rob,
- Thanks for the feedback. Sorry that I didn't recall that detail of your earlier message (the CGMs of setView001 and setView002 pass WebCGM 2.0 validation).
- I have fixed three HTML 4.01 validation errors in each test and uploaded:
- setView001.htm
- setView002.htm
- Rob, to spread out the review assignments somewhat ... would you mind doing the re-review and telling me if these two tests are okay for TAP status?
- Thanks,
- -Lofton.
- At 03:48 PM 4/20/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
- Lofton,
- I agree with you, I don't think there is anything wrong with the CGMs in the setView001 and setView002 tests. In fact, I've already pointed this out in an earlier message.
- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00058.html
- Regards,
- Rob
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
- Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:53 PM
- To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Test Review Results -- for Benoit
- Ulrich -- your review indicates that there are CGM errors -- "CGM Syntax Check - Errors Present" -- on these two tests: setView001, setView002.
- I have just run MetaCheck with WebCGM 2.0 profile checking (-r webcgm20). No CGM errors, no profile errors reported on either CGM file. Could you please elaborate?
- (I think the action on these two tests should stay with you for now.)
- -Lofton.
- [1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/test-matrix.htm
- At 08:44 PM 4/15/2009 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Ulrich_Lasche?= wrote:
- Hi All,
- Attached to this mail you will find my complete test review results for the 14 tests that are assigned to me (2 tests are pending).
- I checked against the categories CGM Syntax Check , HTML Syntax Check , Visual Check and WebCGM Syntax Check . These categories are explained in detail within the attached text file.
- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]