[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance
--
Stuart Galt
SGML Resource
Group
stuart.a.galt@boeing.com
(206) 544-3656
[...comments in 3 parts, for Forrest, All, and Ulrich/All...]
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:39 AM
To: 'WebCGM'
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]