RE: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM version in test cases

[Robert Orosz <roboro@AUTO-TROL.com>]

Lofton,

I believe that all files in the test suite should carry ProfileEd:2.0 in
their Metafile Description.  Tools written to validate profile conformance,
e.g. Metacheck, will likely fail the file as a valid WebCGM 2.0 file, if the
ProfileEd substring is set to 1.0.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:31 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] 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.