RE: [cgmopen-members] Fwd: Re: CGM Interested parties

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Martin, Franck --

Thanks for your lucid contributions on this topic.  A couple of comments...

At 03:48 PM 10/18/01 +0200, DULUC Franck wrote:
>Martin,
>
>         I agree with you about the role of Style guide for avoiding use of
>hazardous primitives (depending on tools (as raster patterns). We are
>currently defining guides to deal with "cgm risks".

Will this be a public document?  It would be useful.

Having said that, I'll also make the comment:  it should not be necessary, 
and it is unfortunate that it is necessary!

>This is, I think a part
>of the work. The other part I think we should ask for is the
>interoperability of tools at a maximum rate.

This is the goal and the solution.  But, it has proved elusive so 
far.  Recall that ATA put out a "letter to vendors", stating that correct 
implementations *would be required* of vendors.  To my knowledge, most 
(all?) users (buyers of technology) never actually followed up on 
this.  I.e., they never required certification (when it was possible), and 
didn't impose stringent interoperability requirements.

I have a practical question.  If all viewer (and editor/import) 
implementations passed the ATA conformance test suite, to what extent do 
you think that would solve the problem?  I believe that it would improve 
things greatly, tho' it might not solve all problems.  (E.g., to what 
extent are some of the generator products making erroneous content, or 
content with private elements (e.g., ActiveCGM extensions)?

Comments or suggestions?

-Lofton.


*******************
Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
*******************