[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [cgmo-webcgm] Three FC tests to "reworking"
Forrest, this comment might need attention also. Ulrich -- At 11:21 AM 3/30/2009 +0200, Ulrich Läsche wrote: >[...] >Is there an HTML page with a different name that belongs to >setGetFillOffset.cgm & .png? I noticed there are some tests which have >deviating names for .htm and .cgm, but don't see a matching one. Can you identify these please? There may be cases where a deviation is justified, but as a general rule, the names ought to match for the different pieces of a test. (Rob, is this a criterion in test reviewing? "... parts should have matching names unless there is a purposeful reason for deviating.") Regards, -Lofton. >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >Gesendet: Samstag, 28. März 2009 20:29 >An: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org >Betreff: [cgmo-webcgm] Three FC tests to "reworking" > >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. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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]