[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version
slipped from memory, option 1, synchronized then. -----Original Message----- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:45 PM To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version ISSUE: Does the XCF version (attribute on <webcgm> element) match the WebCGM profile version, or is it independent? DISCUSSION: This was raised as a side question in the namespace URL thread: >At 10:26 AM 6/4/2005 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrück wrote: >One question: >This is the namespace for the XML Companion File only, right? >We decided that the version of the XCF is independent from the WebCGM >version to allow for updates of the DTD without having to change >the profile (Cologne). >So what version number do we use for the DTD? 1.0? The pre-Munich draft said only, "Represents the version of the WebCGM companion file." The issue was discussed again at Munich, and the editing directives indicate that it was decided to synchronize XCF 'version' and the hosting WebCGM profile specification (XCF is published as a part of WebCGM profile). The post-Munich CD text says, "Represents the version of the WebCGM specification. The value is set to 2.0 for this specification." OPTIONS: 1.) Synchronized, per 2/2005 Munich decision. 2.) Change (back) to independent. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1, synchronized.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]