Three FC tests to "reworking"

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Forrest,

Combining input from Ulrich's (partial) review, and Rob's MetaCheck 
verification, the following three tests have returned to 'reworking':

setGetBGColor, setGetFillOffset, setGetTextStyles

The critical issue is that they aren't metachek-valid according to some 
already-published WebCGM version (2.0 at least ... possibly 1.0 by 
agreement and negotiation?).

This topic will be on the TC agenda.

All -- I will note that invalid test files may still be usable by 
developers (as in this case), but ... validity and strict conformance is a 
strong claim of us (the WebCGM developers and advocates), so validity 
problems are something of an embarrassment if we let them stand for too 
long (IMHO).

Regards,
-Lofton.

>From: Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>
>To: 'Lofton Henderson' <lofton@rockynet.com>
>[...]
>The following tests should be set to reworking:
>
>setGetBGColor, setGetFillOffset, setGetTextStyles
>
>[... link to ... message in the status column...]
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00058.html
>
>The above three metafiles claim to be WebCGM 1.0 metafiles, but in fact are
>not compliant.  We [...] agree that they should at least be valid WebCGM 1.0
>metafiles, so this is a no-brainer.  We should discuss in next Wednesday's
>telecon whether we should also require them to be WebCGM 2.1 compliant.