Re: Fwd: SPECMD04

Benoit,

I agree with your analysis.  I'll update the PNG image.  (Btw, I also went 
back and compared to the old NIST-ATA suite, and there was effectively an 
"under construction" placeholder for this test.)

Btw, note that I'm copying the WebCGM TC because:

-- there are two implementors there who don't participate in the WebCGM WG;
-- formally speaking, that is the venue for changes to the test suite.

(That said, the OASIS list server is broken and the TC list is unwritable now.)

In reality, it won't always be clear where to discuss something, as the 
Implementation Report is part of the W3C process, and depends on the test 
suite for which *formal* responsibility resides at OASIS.

When I update the PNG image, I'll report it on the TC list.  (I'll Cc: or 
pointer on WG list, if anyone thinks that should also be done.)

Thoughts (anyone)?

-Lofton.

At 10:28 AM 8/1/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>This is a forwarded message
>To: "Benoit Bezaire" <benoit@itedo.com>
>Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 5:12:43 AM
>Subject: SPECMD04
>
>===8<==============Original message text===============
>Hi Benoit,
>
>explanation to SPECMD04.
>
>The file structure looks like:
>
>Beg Pic
>         MSSM abs
>Beg Pic Body
>         MSSM scaled
>         MS 10
>         MSSM abs
>         MS 1
>         MSSM scaled
>                 Polymarker
>         MSSM abs
>                 Polymarker
>         MS 50
>         MSSM scaled
>                 Polymarker
>End Pic
>
>The defined scaling factor is 0.1. So the MS 1 becomes 0.1 (this should be
>the max. extent of the maker (7.7.7.))
>This means that is correct (in my opinion) to draw the marker in the middle
>very small and the PNG is wrong.
>
>The only thing that can be discussed is the size of the first or the third
>marker: If a size of 10 is set in MSSM scaled, than a size of 1 in MSSM abs,
>than switched to MSSM scaled: Did the second value override the first or are
>there more than one different marker sizes (one for abs, one for scaled,
>etc.)? [...]
>
>
>===8<===========End of original message text===========
>
>Hi,
>
>We are trying to determine if our rendered result of SPECMD04 is
>ok or not. I'm forwarding an explanation that a colleague sent me.
>According to this interpretation, rendering a very small marker in the
>middle is correct. Your thoughts?
>
>--
>Regards,
>  Benoit                            mailto:benoit@itedo.comReceived: from 
> mail.isodraw.de [195.125.11.98] by mail.itedo.com with ESMTP
>   (SMTPD-8.22) id AB1008D4; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:12:48 -0700
>Received: from devmb [192.168.4.76] by mail.isodraw.de with ESMTP
>   (SMTPD-9.04) id AB0F0340; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:12:47 +0200
>From: "Michael Brenner" <michaelbrenner@isodraw.de>
>To: "Benoit Bezaire" <benoit@itedo.com>
>CC: dieter@itedo.com
>Subject: SPECMD04
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:12:43 +0200
>Message-ID: <000e01c6b54a$a7ab3320$4c04a8c0@itedo.local>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>         charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
>Thread-Index: Aca1SqU2ImtQcUYHQke/D3UZitNU/w==
>X-RCPT-TO: <benoit@itedo.com>
>Status: U
>X-UIDL: 433560811
>X-IMail-ThreadID: 1b1001d9000073d5

Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 16:18:59 UTC