- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:09:53 -0600
- To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
We should have a discussion about the test suite tomorrow (Thursday). Chris raised made some good points: how many tests? (I answered in previous mail, in reply to Thierry's counts). Relationship of 1.0 suite and 2.0 suite? (The reality is that the 2.0 suite incorporates and adds to the 1.0 suite -- i.e., the 2.0 suite is the 1.0 suite plus ~40 other tests, and we should root out and fix wording that implies otherwise). And yes, we need to ensure that we don't imply that WebCGM 2.0 is a delta specification. There is another point that we should talk about also, and Chris and I had an exchange about this in May-ish time frame. Bottom line, we should be careful about editing the test suite itself in W3C space. I'll try to send more about this later, else we can just discuss at the telecon. Regards, -Lofton. At 02:27 PM 7/26/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote: >Chris Lilley wrote: >>On Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 10:07:07 AM, Thierry wrote: >> >>TM> Lofton, >> >>TM> I have edited and published the following on the W3C site: >> >>TM> WebCGM 2.0 Implementation Report >>TM> http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/implementation-report.html >> >>TM> WebCGM 2.0 Test Suite >>TM> http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/testsuite.html >>I suggest adding, right after >>This Test Suite does not cover all WebCGM 2.0 features. It only covers >>the new DOM-related and XCF features, and the new static and >>"intelligence" features -- the 2.0 additions to WebCGM 1.0. >>the following >>WebCGM 2.0 implementations are therefore expected also to pass the WebCGM >>1.0 test suite. > > >Done . Good catch. >>The reason that I want this to be explicit is to allay any concerns over >>'delta specifications'. >sure. > > >The imlplementation reports only the new features introduced in WebCGM 2.0. > >I guess the new features in WebCGM do not impact Web CGM 1.0. > > >Should we also add your statement in the CR exit criteria ? > > >-- >Thierry Michel >W3C
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:17:23 UTC