OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] test suite questions


Lofton,
 
I think we need to have the following test files:
 
- files with 1.0 behavior
    - ability to test apps that can read 1.0 only
    - ability to test apps that can read 2.0 for correct mapping
- files with 2.0 behavior
    - obvious
 
Regards,
Dieter


From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:39 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] test suite questions

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]