Re: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

[...comments in 3 parts, for Forrest, All, and Ulrich/All...]

Ulrich's review (of 'lineAnimation"):
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00038.html

Forrest -- are you able to fix the issues that Ulrich pointed out in
his review?
-----

All -- here is what MetaCheck complained about, and I have a question
about #2:

1.) ProfileEd is 2.0
2.) nbr of entries in dash-gap list exceeds 8
3.) text precision must be 'stroke'

We have already dealt with #1, and I think #3 is trivial and ought to be
easily fixable.

Question about #2:  "8" is just the Model Profile
value.  Is it okay?  Or does someone want to argue for a higher
value?  Note that Forrest's metafile just repeats 4..1..4..1.....
for a long time, and ends with 46.  Does this hint at some strategy
for these new, cheap-animation capabilities, that argues for more
generous limits?  Or could the same thing be accomplished within the
limit of "8"?

Ulrich, All -- what about the content and presentation of the test? 
Aok?  Or does someone have suggestions (other than metacheck's
syntax issues).
-----

-Lofton.






At 03:55 PM 3/18/2009 +0100, =?us-ascii?Q?Ulrich_Lasche?= 
wrote:

> All,
>
>  
>
> We have finished our review of the assigned
> test cases and will send a more detailed report soon.  One general
> remark though:
>
>  
>
> I ran all 10 CGMs through MetaCheck with the
> WebCGM option and all files were
> incompliant.  The first error message:
>
>  
>
> Error 6589: WebCGM
> 1.0 (2R) Profile Violation.
>
> The METAFILE DESCRIPTION string is invalid; it
> lacks the phrase
>
> "ProfileEd:1.0" required by the
> Profile. 
>
>  
>
> is clear but still raises an issue.  All
> 10 files contain either ProfileEd:1.0 or 2.0.  In the test files
> that I constructed manually I put in ProfileEd:2.1 (see
> rotateAPS.txt).  Is this correct?
>
>  
>
> While this would be a cosmetic issue there are
> a number of additional errors in these files.  I am wondering if
> there is some compatibility issue between 1.0 and 2.1.  Could you
> please look into the MetaCheck reports (grouped into vendor specific
> zips) and tell me your opinion?
>
>  
>
> Thanks & regards
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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