RE: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0

[Dieter Weidenbrück <dieter@itedo.com>]

Lofton,

see below, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:09 PM
> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0
> 
> Information, and QUESTION/ISSUE (for email and for next telecon)...
> 
> On FTS:  webcgm20-ts-20060212.zip
> 
> I have started modifying the 1.0 (rel-1.1) dynamic tests, for 
> 2.0 correctness, according to the assessment I sent a while 
> ago.  I will keep doing this, and periodically put up new zip files.
> 
> In this batch, changed tests are:
> * linking-selectID-BE-05
> * linking-selectName-BE-06
> * linking-anyURI-BE-07
> 
> You can view them by opening the IntroPage.html and 
> navigating from there.
> 
> These three tests have something in common:  they have 
> navigation (links) to objects, but no specified object 
> behaviors.  Therefore they use the default object behavior.  
> We changed the default object behavior for 2.0.  In 1.0, it 
> was effectively zoom+newHighlight (with a small wrinkle about 
> presence/absence of a 'viewcontext' ApsAttr on the target).
> 
> Therefore you will see this:
> 
> 1.) a 1.0 viewer showing the 1.0 file (in the 1.0 Test Suite) 
> should give unzoomed view, highlighted object.
yes
> 
> 2.) a 2.0 viewer showing the 2.0 file should give zoomed 
> view, highlighted object.
yes
> 
> 3.) QUESTION.  what about a 2.0 viewer on the 1.0 file?  
> Should it detect the version of the CGM (target) and do #1 or 
> #2 accordingly?
We defined a mapping for 2.0 viewers for 1.0 behaviors. Once the
behaviors got mapped, the viewer needs to show the correct behavior
for the 2.0 behaviors.

Dieter
> 
> We have not specified the answer to this question in the 
> text.  (Btw, does anyone recall why we did this?  It is NOT 
> the path of least surprise and least change.)
> 
> Another minor point.  Note the reference picture (PNG) in 
> linking-anyURI-BE-07.  The triangle is a polygon.  Shouldn't 
> the Edge Join be applied at the closure point?
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
>