Re: list of potential 2.0 defects

Lofton,

I browsed the archives and could not find any additional WebCGM 2.0 errata.

There is a message [1], for which I am not sure we gave an answer to the 
commenter, about section 3.4, how to use the object element to include a 
WebCGM file in a HTML document.


The WebCGM 2.0 PR [2] says:
<object data="xxx.cgm" type="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM"; 
width="200" height="100" />

And this was corrected in the WebCGM 2.0 REC version [3] as it says:
<object data="xxx.cgm" type="image/cgm;Version=4;ProfileId=WebCGM" 
width="200" height="100" />

so it looks OK, as the semicolon was removed.

Maybe we should thank the commenter (as he sent some new errata candidate).

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2006Oct/0002.html
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/PR-webcgm20-20061017/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_4
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/WebCGM20-IC.html#webcgm_3_4



  Henderson wrote:
> 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

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 07:33:46 UTC