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: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files


Okay, I'm willing to live with "2.0-valid" for most files, at least 
initially.  (Maybe mark it "lime" and postpone the decision.)  As I pointed 
out earlier, the "What's new in WebCGM 2.1" appendix shows zero additions 
to 2.1 metafile content (but ... CAVEAT ... some subtractions).

Not listed there is:  increase to limit of octets in text 
strings;  potential (open) increase to number of dash-gap pieces in an LETD 
definition.  (So **NOTE** -- any file that employed those changes **MUST** 
be a 2.1 file.)  Briefly, a 2.0 metacheck scan on a 2.1 content file would 
be "almost right", with the exception of a small number of well-known 
deviations.

Good point that you raise about FontSub tests and the official use 
cases.  Any simple font sub test might run into the same issue -- the 
feature is indeed targeted for use in particular application and operating 
environments.  By simple, I mean something 
like:  sub/mySanSerif-Helvetica-like-font/Helvetica/.  I.e, the 
substitution font is one single font name, and ... not everyone has 
Helvetica.  But it could also substitute to a less-simple list:  "Helvetica 
Arial Swiss san-serif", and the test harness should discuss the possible 
variation of results.

We should discuss in TC telecon (Stuart--add to agenda please?).

-Lofton.

At 05:20 PM 3/27/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>[...]
>We are closer to agreement than you realize.  I also believe (but
>unfortunately failed to explictly state in my earlier message), that
>metafiles in the test suite should be WebCGM compliant to some specific
>profile edition.
>
>Thanks for clarifying the use case for ACI font substitution.  It sounds to
>me like a single test for the "official" use case is impossible.  Since the
>font mapping is to "locally available resource" doesn't that make any test
>platform dependent?  In other words, a test written for the Windows platform
>would fail on Mac OS X because the "locally available resource" is
>different.  Wouldn't you need a separate test for each platform that you
>wanted to test on?
>
>Rob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:08 PM
>To: Robert Orosz; 'CGM Open WebCGM TC'
>Cc: David Cruikshank (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
>
>
>Rob,
>
>Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I have some responses.
>
>First, I looked at the Conformance Chapter for guidance:
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Conf.htm
>l#webcgm_conformance_CoP
>
>I don't find any thing definitive.  But we are defining conformance for 2.1
>things, including 2.1 metafiles, DOM, and ACI.  To me, it makes sense that
>newly constructed metafiles to test 2.1 features should be 2.1
>metafiles.  Furthermore, one would need to be really careful about 1.0 or
>2.0 metafiles -- if they contained any deprecated or obsoleted features
>(e.g., multi-picture, or any of the others), then I believe a conforming
>2.1 DOM or ACI would not have to handle them!
>
>Onward to some of your specific points...
>
>At 03:38 PM 3/24/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
> >Lofton,
> >
> >Your summary points #1 through #5 below are accurate.
> >
> >Regarding point #3, I don't recall ever mentioning that new metafiles in
>the
> >test suite should follow the WebCGM 2.1 profile.  In the reviewer
>guidelines
> >[1], I only mention that the CGMs should be valid without mentioning a
> >specific profile edition.  This was intentional.  My thinking was that the
> >CGM need only be valid with respect to the base CGM 99 standard and also be
> >suitable for its specific test.
>
>I disagree with this idea.  For example, a CGM without a font list is valid
>CGM:1999.  I don't think we want CGM-valid, but WebCGM-unfriendly,
>metafiles in the test suite.  I would therefore suggest that the metafile
>should be WebCGM compliant to at least *some* version.  As I argued above,
>take care with 1.0 & 2.0, lest deprecated or obsoleted features are there
>(and pass MetaCheck), but 2.1 viewers are not required to handle them!
>
> >For example, some of the "new" tests were
> >added to fill gaps in the test suite; i.e. they are testing WebCGM 2.0 or
> >even 1.0 features.
>
>I think in these cases -- supplying tests to fill holes in 1.0 or 2.0 parts
>of the test suite, I would have no objection to 1.0 or 2.0 WebCGM
>ProfileEd's.  (But I think it would be good that all such metafile contents
>are still required in 2.1 -- i.e., not deprecated or obsoleted.)
>
> >It didn't make a lot of sense to me to require a WebCGM
> >2.1 metafile in those cases.  However, I did raise the profile issue in one
> >of my test reviews [2].  The issue here was not simply the fact that the
> >profile was ATA GREXCHANGE instead of WebCGM.  The main issue in my mind
>was
> >that the metafile contained elements that were not allowed in any edition
>of
> >WebCGM.  The re-submitted metafile is a compliant WebCGM 2.0 metafile, and
>I
> >accepted it without any reservations.
>
>At this point I have a philosophical divergence.  We all know that DOM and
>ACI will be used to handle non-WebCGM content, or invalid WebCGM
>content.  However, we had long arguments about this (in the ACI context) in
>the past couple of years, and the formal position is this:  ACI font sub
>(for example) is intended to facilitate matching font names in valid
>WebCGM's (either Adobe13, or other-plus-FontProp) to locally available
>resource.
>
>It was a spirited debate (Boston, IIRC) that the official use case and
>design purpose should not be the handling of invalid WebCGMs, or non-WebCGM
>metafiles.
>
>See here,
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.h
>tml#ACI-motivation
>,
>where it says:
>"The WebCGM Aplication Configuration Items file (ACI) allows the user to
>improve font interchange by specifying a desired font mapping when WebCGM
>applications process WebCGM content."
>
>Of course everyone is going to use it that way.  And we did throw in the
>font-name-normalization bits, despite the formal statement of purpose.
>
>All that said, coming back to the test suite:  I think the Test Suite
>should honor the intent and good practice.  I'm not much of a fan of
>throwing files into the 2.1 WebCGM Test Suite which are not valid WebCGM of
>*any* version.
>
>
> >Don's ACI work brings up another consideration that I hadn't initially
> >thought about.  One of the stated use cases for ACI is to specify things
> >such as a line cap style in a version 1 CGM [3].  In a version 3 or 4 CGM,
> >this of course is accomplished with the version 3 Line Cap element.
> >Presumably this use case is intended for legacy CGMs that predate the
> >introduction of version 3 elements.
>
>In the backs of our minds, that was another motivation.  But officially, as
>stated in your reference [3], we're aimed at:  1.) version 1 WebCGM
>instances (still valid in 2.1), altho' I'd be surprised if any such
>metafiles exist;  2.) the under-defined 'unspecified' default value of
>these things in V3 WebCGM instances (the metafile generator only cared
>about any reasonable treatment from amongst the standardized values, but
>XYZ Corp wants uniform treatment at presentation time.)
>
> >If so, these CGMs also predate WebCGM
> >1.0 by several years.  One could then make the argument that a compliant
> >WebCGM metafile of any profile edition does not make a good test case for
> >these ACI tests.
>
>That's a good point.  But it is difficult to reconcile throwing these into
>the WebCGM 2.1 test suite, since compliant WebCGM viewers are not required
>to handle them.
>
>Idea:  a separate demo or samples collection, that show all of the other
>wonderful things one can do with these new 2.1 DOM and ACI
>features.  (Which are the thing a lot of people actually want to do.) And
>leave the official 2.1 Test Suite more rigidly aligned the formal stated
>purposes and use cases.  And consistent with the 2.1 conformance
>definitions (Ch.7).
>
>
> >If you want to look at a specific example, aciFontNormalization.cgm
>contains
> >Times_Roman as one of the entries in its font list.  This is a WebCGM
> >profile violation, because Times-Roman (with a hyphen instead of
>underscore)
> >is specified as a recommended font.  However, WebCGM 2.1 specifies rules
>for
> >"normalizing" font names such as this, and this test is simply intended to
> >test that specific subsection of WebCGM 2.1 [4].  The very nature of this
> >test makes a WebCGM 2.1 compliant metafile unsuitable.
>
>Right.  This is a case where we actually did instanciate one of the real,
>behind-the-scenes motivations into the text:  "fix trivially deviant but
>common usage".  I don't see how to avoid testing this feature, without a
>metafile that is WebCGM-deviant.  (Unless we went back to a plain vanilla
>CGM, and I have some discomfort with that.)
>
>
> >The old CALS CGM profile specified in MIL-D-28003A did in fact specify the
> >font name as TIMES_ROMAN with an underscore.  Also, a MIL-D-28003A
>compliant
> >CGM would not contain the WebCGM mandated Font Properties element, because
> >that profile did not allow the Font Properties element.  In my opinion,
>such
> >a metafile fits the stated use case and would make a better ACI test case
> >than any metafile conforming to any profile edition of WebCGM.
>
>That point is harder for me to argue against.  But ... I'd still like to
>see most files in the test suite at least *pretending* to be
>WebCGM-compliant.  For example, in the transparent-cell-colour test,
>changing the profile id to WebCGM (from ATA).
>
>It is possible in the font-substitution area (specifically, the
>name-normalization rules), that we might deviate from that general
>principle.  (Still thinking about that one.)
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>
> >[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/ReviewerInstructions.html
> >[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200901/msg00003.html
> >[3]
> >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.
>h
> >tml#ACI-motivation
> >[4]
> >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Config.
>h
> >tml#ACI-maplist
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> >Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:56 PM
> >To: 'CGM Open WebCGM TC'
> >Subject: RE: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> >
> >
> >Don -- the action item is back to you to correct the metafile errors from
> >Rob and Ulrich.  Can you fix these problems?  (Matrix [1] is updated.)
> >
> >Rob, Ulrich, All --
> >
> >Does this accurately summarize the metafile problems, as detected by
> >MetaCheck (and reviewers)?
> >
> >1.) Max VDC Extent violation;
> >2.) "ColourClass:colour" problem (MetaCheck bug);
> >3.) ProfileEd is 2.0 (ought to be 2.1);
> >4.) Max Colour Index violation;
> >5.) Font List violation ('arial' in Font List but no Font Properties
> >element).
> >
> >Overall opinion:  While these problems must be fixed, they are in some
> >sense "formal", and I think most of them will not affect an implementor's
> >ability to use the file.  The overall structure and content of the test is
> >appropriate.  Details:
> >
> >#1:  the MaxVdcExt element is a pain in the butt!  Should never have been
> >added to CGM:1999.  But ... there it is, so may as well bite the bullet and
> >make it right.  (IMHO, this is purely a "formal" error -- should have no
> >practical impact on early users of the test.)
> >#2:  metacheck bug, nothing need be changed.
> >#3:  ought to be 2.1 for new metafiles in the 2.1 test suite, yes?  (See
> >Rob's comments below about this -- MetaCheck will gripe but we know it's
> >not a problem.)
> >#4:  Another "formal" violation -- I would expect minimal impact on early
> >users of the test.
> >#5:  This is somewhat at the heart of the test.  While it *might* not
> >impact early users of the test, on the other hand it might.  It could be
> >fixed by either changing the font to 'helvetica', or by adding a Font
> >Properties element.
> >
> >Thoughts (anyone)?
> >
> >Btw, once these metafile problems are resolved, we will have a big batch of
> >tests ready for "Approved", I think.
> >
> >Regards,
> >-Lofton.
> >
> >[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/test-matrix.htm
> >
> >At 05:02 PM 3/19/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
> > >Don,
> > >
> > >The binary CGMs that you've submitted are invalid. I've attached a ZIP
>file
> > >containing the MetaCheck trace output for each.
> > >
> > >Lofton,
> > >
> > >Please reset the status of these tests to reworking.
> > >
> > >   aciDefaultFont
> > >   aciEdgeAttr
> > >   aciFontNormalization
> > >   aciGenericFonts
> > >   aciHatchStyleDef
> > >   aciLineAttr
> > >   aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> > >   aciMapListOrder
> > >   aciMitreLimit
> > >   aciRestrictedTextType
> > >   aciSimpleFontSubsitution
> > >
> > >The CGM conformance violation is the same in each; namely, the VDC Extent
> > >exceeds the specified Maximum VDC Extent.  Each CGM has (1,1) (-1,-1) for
> > >the Maximum VDC Extent and that is well exceeded by the VDC Extent in
>each
> > >case.
> > >
> > >These CGMs also highlight an inconsistency in the WebCGM profile.  T.16.8
> > >allows for 16-bit color index precision.  However, T.16.9 caps the
>maximum
> > >color index at 255, i.e. effectively limiting you to only 8-bit color
>index
> > >precision.  We should make these two table rows in the PPF consistent
>with
> > >each other.
> > >
> > >More later,
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: 'Don Larson (E-mail)' [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com]
> > >Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:37 AM
> > >To: Lofton Henderson
> > >Cc: 'CGM Open WebCGM TC'
> > >Subject: re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> > >
> > >
> > >Lofton,
> > >
> > >I have corrected and updated the following ACI files:
> > >
> > >   aciFontNormalization.aci
> > >   aciLineAttr.aci
> > >   aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> > >   aciMitreLimit.aci
> > >
> > >
> > >Also all the ACI related CGMs have been converted to binary:
> > >
> > >   aciDefaultFont.cgm
> > >   aciEdgeAttr.cgm
> > >   aciFontNormalization.cgm
> > >   aciGenericFonts.cgm
> > >   aciHatchStyleDef.cgm
> > >   aciLineAttr.cgm
> > >   aciLineEdgeTypeDef.cgm
> > >   aciMapListOrder.cgm
> > >   aciMitreLimit.cgm
> > >   aciRestrictedTextType.cgm
> > >   aciSimpleFontSubsitution.cgm
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Don
> > >
> > >  >  At 10:22 AM 3/17/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >  >  >Don,
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciMitreLimit aci file <mitreLimit limitVal=5 />
> > >  >  >         should be <mitreLimit limitVal="5" />
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciRestrictedTextType aci file OK
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciLineEdgeType  aci file OK
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciHatchStyleDef  aci file </hatchStyleDef>
> > >  >  >         should be />
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciLineAtt  aci file    <lineCap lineCapInd=2 lineDashInd=3 />
> > >  >  >     <lineJoin lineJoinInd=4 />
> > >  >  >     <lineTypeCont lineContMode=3 />
> > >  >  >         Should be     <lineCap lineCapInd="2" lineDashInd="3" />
> > >  >  >     <lineJoin lineJoinInd="4" />
> > >  >  >     <lineTypeCont lineContMode="3" />
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciEdgeAtt  aci file OK
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciFontNormalization aci file <fontmap> and </fontmap>
> > >  >  >         should be <fontMap> and </fontMap>
> > >  >  >CGM file is clear text, should be binary
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >Regards,
> > >  >  >Forrest
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >-----Original Message-----
> > >  >  >From: Don Larson (E-mail) [mailto:dlarson@cgmlarson.com]
> > >  >  >Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:02 AM
> > >  >  >To: Lofton Henderson
> > >  >  >Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
> > >  >  >Subject: re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >Lofton,
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >All of the following ACI files have been updated by adding-
> > >  >  >   <?xml version = "1.0" ?>
> > >  >  >   <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >aciFontNormalization
> > >  >  >aciGenericFonts
> > >  >  >aciMapListOrder
> > >  >  >aciLineAttr
> > >  >  >aciEdgeAttr
> > >  >  >aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> > >  >  >aciHatchStyleDef
> > >  >  >aciEdgeAttr.aci
> > >  >  >aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> > >  >  >aciLineAttr.aci
> > >  >  >aciLineEdgeTypeDef.aci
> > >  >  >aciMitreLimit.aci
> > >  >  >aciRestrictedTextType.aci
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >Regards,
> > >  >  >Don L.
> > >  >  >Larson Software Technology
> > >  >  >www.cgmlarson.com
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Don,
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  When you have corrected this, on every ACI file, could you
> >please
> > >  >  inform
> > >  >  >  >  the TC via the TC list?
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Then I'll update the matrix and we'll be ready for final steps
> > >toward
> > >  >  TC
> > >  >  >  >  "Approved".
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Thanks,
> > >  >  >  >  -Lofton.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  At 02:57 PM 3/16/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Lofton,
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  None of the aci files in the test suite are valid xml files.
>Don
> > >has
> > >  >  >  >  corrected one error I pointed out in his latest update but all
> >aci
> > >  >  files
> > >  >  >  >  in the test suite are missing the two lines below, the first
> >line
> > >is
> > >  >  >  >  required and the second line should be included
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  <?xml version = "1.0" ?>
> > >  >  >  >  <!DOCTYPE webcgmConfig SYSTEM "webConfig.dtd">
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Regards,
> > >  >  >  >  Forrest
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > >  >  >  >  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:33 PM
> > >  >  >  >  To: Forrest Carpenter; 'WebCGM'
> > >  >  >  >  Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] review of aci files
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Forrest,
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  At 09:41 AM 3/10/2009 -0500, Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  I don t believe the aci files provided in the tests are valid.
>I
> > >have
> > >  >  >  >  attached an example of what I believe the files should look
> >like.
> > >I
> > >  >  have
> > >  >  >  >  also found one error in the DTD, dashlength should be changed
>to
> > >  >  >  >  dashLength.
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Can you be specific, what files you are referring to?  I.e.,
> >list
> > >  >  them?
> > >  >  >  >  You had the Action to review these 7:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  aciFontNormalization
> > >  >  >  >  aciGenericFonts
> > >  >  >  >  aciMapListOrder
> > >  >  >  >  aciLineAttr
> > >  >  >  >  aciEdgeAttr
> > >  >  >  >  aciLineEdgeTypeDef
> > >  >  >  >  aciHatchStyleDef
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Does your comment apply to all 7 of these?
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  Then Don sent an update message saying he had updated this
> > >different
> > >  >  set
> > >  >  >  >  of files:
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  aciEdgeAttr.aci
> > >  >  >  >  aciHatchStyleDef.aci
> > >  >  >  >  aciLineAttr.aci
> > >  >  >  >  aciLineEdgeTypeDef.aci
> > >  >  >  >  aciMitreLimit.aci
> > >  >  >  >  aciRestrictedTextType.aci
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  I'm getting a little lost, trying to track the status of
> >"Review"
> > >or
> > >  >  >  >  "Reworking", and who has the action item, in the matrix.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >  >  >  -Lofton.
> > >  >  >
> > >  >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]