[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]