W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > June 2009

Re: recent WebCGM 2.1 progression activity

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:43:51 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090617111355.033e1340@localhost>
To: tmichel@w3.org
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thierry (et al),

At 07:50 PM 6/16/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>[...]
>Thanks you for your efforts.
>If you need any help to produce the WebCGM 2.1 Implementation Report, 
>please let me  know.

Thanks for the offer.  For now, I'm just waiting for initial results from 
each of the 4 implementations, and then I will have the first draft of the 
2.1 add-on document ready to put onto the WG site.

There is something that I have been thinking about, that might be an 
interesting discussion for email and next telecons.  Consider the full 2.1 
spec, and what the full 2.1 Test Suite (TS) consist of:

2.1 Spec:
-----
WebCGM 2.1 = As  (plus/minus) Bs  (plus)  Cs
where...
As:   WebCGM 2.0 (w/ approved errata rolled in)
Bs:   a very small number of changes for deprecation/obsoletion
Cs:    new WebCGM 2.1 functionality

2.1 Test Suite:
-----
WebCGM 2.1 TS = At  (plus/minus)  Bt (plus)  Ct
where...
At:    WebCGM 2.0 TS
Bt:    a very few adjustments to 2.0 tests for errata & obsoletion/deprecation
Ct:   "add-on" module of new 2.1 tests for new 2.1 functionality.

The 2.1 add-on module contains 40+ tests.  The basic 2.0 TS contains about 
300 tests.

The document that I'm putting together now is essentially a 2.1 add-on to 
the existing 2.0 document [1], corresponding to the module of new 2.1 tests 
that are to be added to the existing 2.0 TS.  (For the sake of simplicity, 
I'm ignoring the very few changes for errata & obsoletion/deprecation for 
the moment.)  So we might be looking at a new bullet in the "Implementation 
Results" section of [1], that points to the new 2.1 add-on implementation 
table that I'm building.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/implementation-report.html

This raises an interesting question or two.  Should the 2.1 Implementation 
Report effectively cover only the 40+ new 2.1 tests, and point to the old 
2.0 report?  (With a very exceptional entries for the very few 2.0 things 
that changed due to errata, obsoletion, deprecation.)

While it might interesting to see today's implementation results on the 
whole 340 tests, on the other hand 300 of those tests cover features that 
are already REC.  They (and associated 2.0 features) went through the 2.0 
CR-exit process 2-3 years ago, and are certainly not subject to removal 
from 2.1 REC as an outcome of the 2.1 CR exit process.

So I'm thinking that the 2.1 report ought to have the test-by-test 
implementation table (40+ rows) for the new 2.1 features, plus a small 
test-by-test table for 2.0 features that might have changed status (errata, 
obsoletion, deprecation) if there are any such, and could include an 
informative pointer to the 2.0 Implementation Report.

Thoughts?

(We have plenty of time to answer this ... no rush, I'm just starting the 
conversation.)

-Lofton.


>Henderson a écrit :
>>All --
>>
>>As you notice, things are pretty quiet in the WG lately -- we got the 2nd 
>>LCWD review prepared and launched a couple weeks ago, to close on 02 July.
>>
>>2.1 TEST SUITE.
>>-----
>>Meanwhile, over in the TC, a first *raw* release [1] of the new tests for 
>>WebCGM 2.1 has been made.  I characterize it as "raw" because it 
>>comprises only the additional tests required for new 2.1 features, and it 
>>has not yet been fully integrated with the released 2.0 test suite 
>>(comprising 1.0 tests and 2.0 tests).  On the other hand, all of the new 
>>40+ tests have gone through a rigorous development and independent review 
>>process, and are approved by the TC for publication.  They are suitable 
>>for use by 2.1 implementors.
>>
>>[1] 
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32736/webcgm21ts-mod21.zip
>>
>>This is a temporary publication, and temporary location.  A permanent 
>>location will be available soon, after the initial integration into a 
>>full 2.1 Test Suite is finished.
>>
>>IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.
>>-----
>>I have also produced a skeleton document and started the process to 
>>gather actual data for an initial draft of the WebCGM 2.1 Implementation 
>>Report.  More specifically, to gather an initial snapshot about the four 
>>implementors' statuses on the new tests of the WebCGM 2.1 test suite.
>>
>>As soon as I have assembled this initial snapshot, this document *will* 
>>become a WG document, to be developed and refined here until we exit 
>>CR.  (Stay tuned for the initial snapshot, in the near future, as soon as 
>>I have gotten initial responses from all the implementors.)
>>
>>This document should provide a foundation for:  preliminary goals & 
>>agenda planning for Ann Arbor; refinement of our anticipated time line to 
>>our CR-Exit milestone.
>>
>>Questions?
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Lofton.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 15:44:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 June 2009 15:44:42 GMT