[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]