RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Timing for defects processing

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

Lofton,

The response back from Dick Fuhr indicated that CGM99 is correct with regard
to the interval over which the basis functions are defined.  To put this
another way, the original (8632-1/065) defect report had a defect, which
thankfully did not make it into CGM99!

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:21 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Timing for defects processing


All --

Whatever we decide about NUBS/NURBS in WebCGM 2.0, the CGM:1999 defects 
need to be fixed.

Here is Dick Puk's reply to my inquiry (he is SC24/WG6 Chair).  I wrote 
back and told him there could be one additional, related defect (our #3 
topic, which dialog I haven't had time to review yet.)  Therefore requested 
that he hold till we make that determination.

Regards,
-Lofton.

>From: "Richard F. Puk" <puk@igraphics.com>
>To: "'Lofton Henderson'" <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:57:31 -0700
>[...]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:06 AM
> > To: RIchard F. Puk
> >
> > [...]
> > We had prepared a defect report for CGM:1999.  See attached.
> > My guess is that it never got submitted to SC24 for
> > processing.  Question.  If it were submitted now, what is the
> > process to get approval?  What is the best-case scenario for
> > schedule (and worst-case)?
>
>The defect can be immediately balloted. I will submit it as WG6 Chair
acting
>as CGM Defects Rapporteur. I believe that it can be balloted by E-mail
>within SC24 but will ask Jose for advice. Best case, it could be approved
in
>about a month. Worst case, it could take two to three months.
>
>If this is the only defect, I will submit it immediately. If there any
>others, please let me know so that they can be batched together.
>[...]
>This does not appear to be controversial.