setView001 & setView0002 Reviews?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Ulrich,

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.  [...]

Rob tells me that setView001 and setView002 are metachek-okay if we
accept profileEd 2.0, which I think we have agreed to do.

Do you intend "more detailed report" about these two
tests?  They are ready to progress, depending on whether or not you
have more review results (content, correctness, etc).

Thanks,
-Lofton.