Re: [cgmo-webcgm] new matrix & new test suite ZIP

["Ulrich Laesche" <ulrich@ematek.de>]

Lofton,

I have just completed testing on the latest MetaWeb delivery and confirm
that we pass all dynamic 1.0 tests as well as the picture-highlight test.
We also support the XCF tests now and pass node-aps, node-attr, node-ns,
node-pict, and node-text 100%.  The question for node-metadata as described
below is still open though.  Could somebody provide us with the needed
information please so that we can close this issue until next week?

Thanks and regards
Ulrich


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ulrich Laesche" <ulrich@ematek.de>
To: "Don Larson" <dlarson@cgmlarson.com>; "Lofton Henderson"
<lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <forrest@sdicgm.com>; "Benoit Bezaire" <benoit@itedo.com>; "Galt, Stuart
A" <stuart.a.galt@boeing.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] new matrix & new test suite ZIP


> Lofton,
>
> We will pass the highlight test until next week.  We also decided to
> implement the XCF architecture to a degree that will allow passing the 2.0
> tests.  While working on this, our development came up with a question
> which
> I am unable to answer.  Could somebody provide input on this issue please?
>
> "While working on the XCF implementation we found a problem concerning
> Node-metadata.htm test:
> In 6-th case, line 186 in file Node-metadata.htm you can see:
> if( attribs.count == 2 )
> {....}
> But if you look at Node-metadata.xml, there is only one attribute of this
> node:
> <extra:el noContent="true"/>
> Where does the second attribute come from?"
>
> Thanks and regards
> Ulrich
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
> To: "Don Larson" <dlarson@cgmlarson.com>; <ulrich@ematek.de>
> Cc: <forrest@sdicgm.com>; "Benoit Bezaire" <benoit@itedo.com>; "Galt,
> Stuart
> A" <stuart.a.galt@boeing.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] new matrix & new test suite ZIP
>
>> I'd like to point out that highlight() looks to be "at risk" now.  We
>> have
>> one Pass, one Fail (with no commitment yet to implement), and two
>> unknown.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that the test only became available so late in the
>> game,
>> but ... can you tell me (esp. Don and Ulrich) if you think a Pass might
>> be
>> possible in the near future?
>>
>> -Lofton.
>>
>> At 08:42 AM 8/16/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>A new version of the matrix is posted [1] and a new distribution of the
>>>test suite [2], that incorporates the handful of fixes from the last
>>>couple of weeks (see releaseNotes).
>>>
>>>By the way, did anyone in particular have the action to ensure that Chris
>>>got copies of the implementations in time?  Or was that left to the
>>>individuals?  If the latter, I think it would be good if someone (Dave?)
>>>would "ride herd" and make sure that it happens.  These things have a way
>>>of not happening unless tended to.
>>>
>>>-Lofton.
>>>
>>>[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/test-materials/matrix.html
>>>[2]
>>>http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/test-materials/webcgm20ts/webcgm20-ts-index.html