RE: AW: [cgmo-webcgm] Three FC tests to "reworking"

[Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>]

Lofton,

To answer your question, no, there is no specific mention in the Guidelines
for Reviewers that the different components of a test should share the same
base name.  I think that is a very sensible requirement.

I suspect Wednesday's telecon discussion will generate the need to revise
those guidelines.  I can add that name requirement to the next revision.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:46 AM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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