ignore the attachment

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Btw, there shouldn't have been an attachment on this message.  I attached 
linking-anyURI-BE-07 by mistake.  Ignore it.

-Lofton.

At 03:09 PM 2/12/2006 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>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.
>
>2.) a 2.0 viewer showing the 2.0 file should give zoomed view, highlighted 
>object.
>
>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 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.
>