[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: WebCGM version in test cases
In my 'viewcontext' and 'region' test cases for 2.0 DOM, the CGMs are in fact valid WebCGM 1.0 metafiles. There is no file content which is specifically WebCGM 2.0. Should we use ProfileEd:1.0 or ProfileEd:2.0 in the Metafile Description of such metafiles? It seems appropriate to use 2.0, since they are part of a 2.0 test suite. Plus, altho' a 1.0 viewer could display the CGM, it certainly couldn't pass the test (HTML and JS parts). But I haven't really thought it through, whether there are any implications or possible ill side effects. Thoughts? (Hmmm... correct viewing of the 'viewcontext' file, which has object-to-object links, relies on clarified 2.0 object-behavior semantics. So that reinforces using ProfileEd:2.0.) -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]