list of potential 2.0 defects

WebCGM WG,

Below please find a collection of 5 potential WebCGM 2.0 errata.  As far as 
I'm aware, these include all potential 2.0 errata that have been mentioned 
or discussed.

If you can find or have recollection of any additional ones, please reply 
to list.

========== Begin Item #1 ==========

From: Robert Orosz <roboro@auto-trol.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson (E-mail)" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Subject: WebCGM 2.0 erratum
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:38:13 -0600
[...]
I did stumble upon the following WebCGM 2.0 error today.
In the DTD snippet at the beginning of section 4.3.5,
http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/WebCGM20-XCF.html#grobject
the attribute declaration for the visibility attribute is missing the
"inherit" value. I don't see this mistake repeated anywhere else. The
visibility attribute declarations for the other elements (layer, para, etc.)
are all correct as well as the complete XCF DTD in section 4.4. I also
checked the actual DTD on the OASIS web site, and it doesn't have this error
either.
========== end item ==========

========== Begin Item #2 ==========
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621.html#E04

Check if this is 2.0 erratum.  'name' occurrence in 'para' and 'subpara'.

========== end item ==========

========== Begin Item #3 ==========
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621.html#E07

ambiguous applicability of "128" limit in CLOSED FIGURE (PPF)

========== end item ==========
========== Begin Item #4 ==========

(See item #4, 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0001.html . It 
actually looks like an error in the CGM:1999 PPF, but (if we decide not to 
ignore it), we could put a note in the 2.0 PPF, via an erratum, that 
indicates the CGM:1999 PPF for the MP column is suspected to be in error.)

========== end item ==========
========== Begin Item #5 ==========

Email reference: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0007.html

Referring to the last two paragraphs, previous disputes about correct test 
suite results led to the conclusion that the wording of CGM:1999 D.4.5.12 
was imprecise, and did not specify that the radius was to be drawn along 
the start-end ray, which is the agreed intent.  This became normative in 
WebCGM 2.0 (and 1.0 as well). There should be a defect correction to 
CGM:1999, but pending that, the profile(s) should point out the ambiguity 
and assert the correct behavior.

========== end item ==========
========== Begin Item #n ==========


========== end item ==========

Regards,
-Lofton