Re: [cgmo-webcgm] SF unicode test

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

All (& esp. Dieter) --

I'm glad everyone agrees -- the test should be simplified.

Did I hear Dieter volunteer to make a simpler test (than the attachment to 
original message)?  It would focuses more tightly on the 
unicode-in-SF-linking (object id and fragment) bits.  We could either have 
one test (apsid/objid), or two (one by id, one by name).

Ultimately, we could even consider the original (elegant) attachment as a 
third test, but I think we should minimally have simpler ones as well, that 
will make it easier to diagnose cause of failure.

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 12:40 PM 4/3/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...btw, attachment is a ZIP file, renamed for Boeing convenience...]
>
>All --
>
>We have 5 nice unicode tests for graphical text.  We agreed that we need 
>non-graphical, linking test(2).  Attached is something that Dieter sent me 
>a while ago.  It is an elegant test, that...
>
>1.) has utf16 japanese characters in the apsid of an object, and tests a 
>link to it with a fragment containing that apsid
>2.) has utf16 japanese characters in the 'name' ApsAttr of an object, and 
>tests a link to it with a fragment containing that 'name'
>
>#1 is tested in the top row -- the target object is in the left box and 
>the object bearing the link to it is in the right box.  Similarly for #2 
>in the bottom row.
>
>I like that the test explains itself within the picture, but I'm wondering 
>if it's too complex?  It is somewhat complicating that the target objects 
>are themselves *graphical* utf16 japanese text, and the anchor objects of 
>the links are similar -- elegant, but might complicate the easy diagnosis 
>of cause of failure, if a viewer fails the test.
>
>As we discussed last week, it might be better if the test involved less 
>(or none) graphical unicode text, so that pass-fail would purely be a 
>consequence of the non-graphical unicode linking ability.  (However, that 
>would make it a little harder to nicely self-explain, because you wouldn't 
>be able to have those characters as renderable unicode text in the 
>explanatory parts of the picture.)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>-Lofton.
>