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

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

Lofton,

 

I would invert the question you pose below and ask it this way.

 

Does anyone see a reason why 2.1 should be required in all new metafiles?

 

I don't, not only for the reasons that you allude to, but also for other reasons such as the fact that some of the new tests were added to fill gaps in the test suite, etc.  See my previous message for more detail.

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00056.html

 

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:21 AM
To: 'WebCGM'
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance

While we are sorting through the details of Ulrich's reviews, here's my opinion about one question Ulrich asked...

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

[...]
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?

I think all of the CGM's ought to have 2.1 in the metafile description, just because they are new parts of the new WebCGM 2.1 Test Suite.  But, strictly speaking, some of the 2.1 functionality -- for example all of the ACI stuff, and the geometric transform stuff -- would be equally applicable to WebCGMs of any version, or indeed to any valid metafile. 

Thoughts?  Does anyone see a reason why we should not have "2.1" in all of the new metafiles?

-Lofton.

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