W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: list of potential 2.0 defects

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:52:01 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At its Seattle f2f, the WebCGM TC took a preliminary look at each of these 
five potential 2.0 errata.  Embedded (below) are those conclusions...

At 07:28 PM 8/21/2007 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>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,
>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
>========== end item ==========

CONCLUSION:  This is a 2.0 erratum -- editorial deviation of the 4.3.5 DTD 
snippet from both the full DTD and other normative material in WebCGM 2.0 
Ch.4 (XCF).

>========== Begin Item #2 ==========
>Check if this is 2.0 erratum.  'name' occurrence in 'para' and 'subpara'.
>========== end item ==========

CONCLUSION.  Not a 2.0 erratum.  (It occurred in 1.0, and is in the 1.0 
errata collection, but was fixed in 2.0 before publication).

>========== Begin Item #3 ==========
>ambiguous applicability of "128" limit in CLOSED FIGURE (PPF)
>========== end item ==========

CONCLUSION.  It is a 2.0 erratum.  (As well as a 1.0 erratum, where it has 
already been included in the 1.0 errata collection.)  Note in 2.0 PPF 
tables the limit is 1024, having been increased from the 1.0 limit of 128.

>========== 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 ==========

CONCLUSION:  Apparently there is an error in the MP column of the CGM:1999 
PPF for APPLICATION DATA -- the "...shall not restrict" sentence should not 
be there.  It is not there, for example, in the WebCGM 1.0 PPF.

The TC recommended that it not be treated as a 2.0 erratum -- it does not 
substantively affect conformance to the WebCGM 2.0 Profile.

(Although, some argued that it could be construed as affecting conformance 
of the 2.0 profile itself to CGM's "Rules for Profiles", while others 
disputed that assertion.)

>========== Begin Item #5 ==========
>Email reference: 
>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 ==========

CONCLUSION:  This is a 2.0 erratum.  There should be a note in Ch.6's PPF 
(ELLIPTICAL ARC CLOSED and/or IIR sections) that the radius is to be 
aligned with the start-end ray.


>========== Begin Item #n ==========
>========== end item ==========
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 21:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC