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


Rob,

I don't see any reason why either.  I think ProfileEd 2.0 (or even 1.0 if it 
conforms) is ok given that we didn't really add anything in the 2.1 profile
that I can re-collect.

Regards,
Don
Larson Software Technology
Tel: (713)977.4177 ext. 102
www.cgmlarson.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


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