[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Review of Tests - WebCGM Compliance
|
All, I would like to propose we increase the number
of allowable entries in the dash-gap list from 8 to at least 64. In the line animation
test I submitted I use 18 dash-gap patterns, the first 8 pairs are 4,1 and the
last is 46,4. In the test I set the stroke offset to 50% which shows the entire
line as a gap and then decrease the stroke offset by 3% every 500 milliseconds.
This creates the appearance of fluid flowing in a pipe and filling up a tank.
See attached movie. Regards, Forrest From: Lofton Henderson
[mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Stuart -- For question #2 I think that a limit of 8
might be a bit restrictive. I am not sure what would be a 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 [...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
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]