Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: XCF 'version' and derived profiles

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 12:12 PM 8/4/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
>It depends if version is REQUIRED or FIXED. If it's REQUIRED then the
>answer is 2, if it's FIXED then both 1 and 2 are fine.

Good point.

We did settle, after long email and telecon discussion, that it is FIXED.

I'm including example of #2 in next text (2nd CD text freeze tomorrow, Friday).

Thanks,
-Lofton.

>
>Thursday, August 4, 2005, 11:50:10 AM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> WebCGM TC --
>
>LH> We discussed this once in the past, but I can't find a
>LH> detailedrecord.  It is about the 'version' attribute on the XCF
>LH> 'webcgm'element.  This is the current text:
>
>LH> version="CDATA"
>LH> Represents the version of the WebCGM specification. The value
>LH> is 2.0 forthis specification. Every conforming XCF must identify
>LH> its version,either by including this attribute on the webcgm
>LH> element, or by includinga DOCTYPE pointing to this WebCGM XCF's
>LH> DTD, or both (recommended). Anindustry-specific profile derived
>LH> from this WebCGM XCF specification mustnot use this attribute to
>LH> identify its version, and should define andrequire use of a
>LH> namespace attribute to identify its profileversion.
>
>
>LH> QUESTION:  What do we mean for inclusion of version
>LH> attributes inindustry-specific profiles:
>
>LH> 1.) Only use the namespaced version?
>LH> <webcgm asd:version="2.3"xmlns:asd="http://...blah..."; ...>
>
>LH> or
>
>LH> 2.) Use both?
>LH> <webcgm version="2.0"
>LH> asd:version="2.3"xmlns:asd="http://...blah..."; ...>
>LH> (or)
>LH> <webcgm version="2.0"
>LH> asd:s1000d-version="2.3"xmlns:asd="http://...blah..."; ...>
>
>LH> I think #2 is what we meant and makes the most sense.
>LH> I.e.,S1000D derives its 2.3 profile from WebCGM 2.0, and follows
>LH> all theproper rules, so that it is still a conforming and valid
>LH> 2.0 XCF (plusextensions).  So it identifies the base WebCGM
>LH> version, and theS1000D-specific version.
>
>LH> Agreed?
>
>LH> (I will add an example to clarify what we mean.)
>
>LH> -Lofton.