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] Review - lineOffset set.


One point of Rob's review is worth a look:  can we have a good test of LTIO 
with generic line types (2,3,4,5), as opposed to types that are precisely 
defined by LETD?

I agree with the point that the results with generic types will vary, and 
therefore the minimal good test should involve LETD-defined types.

Question:  since it is legal to have LTIO with a generic type (2,3,4,5), 
would it be any use to have a separate test-case that exercises that?  It 
would be tricky, because the correct results are sort of generic -- they 
would have to be described in loose way -- "e.g., the gaps precess to the 
right for subsequent lines in the group" -- and the reference image would 
only be one of a large number of correct images, the latter depending on 
the viewers particular choice of the exact pattern for the generic style 
(2,3,4,5).

-Lofton.


At 01:35 PM 2/12/2009 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>It sounds like this one should transition to "reworking" [1].
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/test-matrix.htm
>
>At 11:16 AM 2/12/2009 -0700, Robert Orosz wrote:
>>All,
>>
>>Below is my review of the lineOffset test.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Rob
>>Summary
>>This test is not acceptable as it stands. There are issues with both the
>>HTML markup and WebCGM profile, vide infra, but more importantly, I don't
>>think the image as it stands makes a good test.
>>Details
>>The image consists of six groups of four lines. Each group has four lines
>>with the line type and all other line attributes held constant, and the Line
>>Type Initial Offset (LTIO) is varied with values of 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75
>>in each group. That is a good test. However, of the six groups, four use the
>>standard line types 2, 3, 4, and 5. The exact rendering of these line types
>>is implementation dependent. Therefore, any offset into the pattern no
>>matter how precisely defined, will also be implementation dependent.
>>The last two groups use Line and Edge Type defined line types. This is good,
>>in fact I think sufficient for this test. I would like to see the image
>>scaled a little larger, so it is easier to see. My suggestion would be to
>>arrange the lines in each of the two test groups vertically across the
>>entire image. Two or three pattern cycles should be sufficient for users to
>>get the idea.
>>The lines are pretty thick, just over 3.5 points. Looking at the PNG image
>>in both Internet Explorer 6 and Internet Explorer 7 gives the impression
>>that there are multiple line widths in the drawing, which is not the case. I
>>would try much thinner lines, e.g. 00 or 000 points.
>>There is no explanation in the image of exactly what the purpose of the red
>>lines are. The long one obviously marks the origin of each of the lines in
>>the test group, but there is no explanation of the purpose of the shorter
>>lines. Looking closely, I see that they are spaced at dash cycle repeat
>>length intervals. Instead of that, I think it would be more useful to have a
>>line at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the first dash cycle repeat length. In
>>other words, each line would mark the beginning of the first complete
>>pattern cycle after the origin for one of the lines in the group. They could
>>be labeled and/or color-coded, so their purpose is clear.
>>Finally, I would like to see a little more explanation in the HTML about
>>what exactly is being tested and what to look for in a successful, i.e.
>>passing, test.
>>HTML Markup Violations
>>There are several issues with the HTML markup that must be addressed; e.g.
>>there is a CAPTION element as a direct child of the BODY. This element is
>>only allowed as a child of TABLE (see
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#edef-CAPTION).
>>WebCGM 2.0 Profile Violations
>>There are two profile violations that must be addressed:
>>1) The CGM contains a Text Precision element with a value of string (0).
>>WebCGM (see T.20.11) only allows a value of stroke (2).
>>2) The CGM does not have a Character Set List element in the Metafile
>>Descriptor section. WebCGM (see T.16.14) requires this element for all
>>metafiles containing graphical text.
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>



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