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

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

They should say ProfileEd:2.0.

'grnode', the new object-to-object links are all version 2 features.
I don't think the ProfileEd can remain 1.0.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com


Thursday, May 12, 2005, 7:30:49 PM, Lofton wrote:

LH> In my 'viewcontext' and 'region' test cases for 2.0 DOM, the CGMs are in
LH> fact valid WebCGM 1.0 metafiles.  There is no file content which is
LH> specifically WebCGM 2.0.

LH> Should we use ProfileEd:1.0 or ProfileEd:2.0 in the Metafile Description of
LH> such metafiles?

LH> It seems appropriate to use 2.0, since they are part of a 2.0 test
LH> suite.  Plus, altho' a 1.0 viewer could display the CGM, it certainly
LH> couldn't pass the test (HTML and JS parts).  But I haven't really thought
LH> it through, whether there are any implications or possible ill side effects.

LH> Thoughts?

LH> (Hmmm... correct viewing of the 'viewcontext' file, which has 
LH> object-to-object links, relies on clarified 2.0 object-behavior 
LH> semantics.  So that reinforces using ProfileEd:2.0.)

LH> -Lofton.