[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE closed: getWebCGMViewerVersion() poll results
Hi Benoit, No objection here. But will you give me a snippet of draft text and tell me where it goes in the specification? Cheers, -Lofton. At 10:30 AM 6/7/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote: >Unless someone objects before Wednesday telecon, this question is >resolved as: Proposal B (poll result), but also: > >- The APIs will be documented in the specification. >- The APIs will be at the plug-in level (i.e., at the same level as >getWebCGMMetafile()). > >-- > Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com > > >Monday, May 30, 2005, 9:50:06 AM, Benoit wrote: > >BB> Hi, > >BB> We have 3 votes for A (Forrest, Don, Benoit) and 3 votes for B >BB> (Stuart, Dave, Frank). Implementors vs users :-) > >BB> Since I believe this to be a very minor issue compared to other >BB> things we have to resolved; I propose we let the Editor (Lofton) >BB> break the tie (I suspect every body to be telling themselves "let's >BB> just agree on something" :). (It's the case for me). > > >BB> Proposal A: >BB> string getWebCGMViewerVersion() >BB> returns a string identifying the User Agent being used (ex: Lofton's >BB> viewer v3.2.2) > >BB> Proposal B: >BB> string getAppName() >BB> returns the application name (ex: Lofton's viewer). > >BB> string getAppVersion() >BB> returns the application version number (ex: 3.2.2) > >BB> Regards,
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]