cgmo-webcgm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: test suite questions
- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:38:56 -0700
I'm having trouble understanding a couple of bits from last weeks
telecon. The minutes say...
- ·
WebCGM
1.0 test suite question -
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/email/archives/200601/msg00015.html
- Change ProfileEd to 2.0, should 2.0 test suite test tolerance of 1.0
behavior models? Ben, should be focusing on 2.0 functionality
only.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. Since most of 1.0 is still
valid 2.0, I assume that the unaltered parts of 1.0 are still to be
tested in the 2.0 test suite. I.e., Ben is not recommending that
the 2.0 test suite should *only* include new 2.0 functionality that is
not part of 1.0. Is that correct?
Some parts of 1.0 have been "deprecated" in 2.0. We
have a definition [1] for what this means in general. There is a
little slop in the definition, because it talks about "2.0 viewers
that support 1.0", without directly addressing the extent to which
2.0 viewers must support 1.0. For the 3 old object behaviors, there is a
definite conformance requirement for 2.0 viewers. Is it suggested
that we not have tests for these conformance requirements?
[1]
http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/WebCGM20-Conf.html#deprecated
One other small comment on the minutes...
· Has
Ulrich updated WebCGM Metafile Test? WebCGM Event
test? Lofton should have the WebCGM Metafile Test, Ulrich sent
it early January.
I think Ulrich and I may have had a communication outage. Indeed in
early January he wrote that he would be sending the revised test within
hours, but I never got it. (So ... please send it again Ulrich, or
alternately put it up on the FTP site directly. Thanks.)
Regards,
-Lofton.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]