ISSUE: deprecated and obsolete features

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

All --

There were no comments on this.  We need preliminary answer(s) before 
publishing first CD, I think.

-Lofton.

>Mailing-List: contact cgmo-webcgm-help@lists.oasis-open.org; run by ezmlm
>List-Post: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-help@lists.oasis-open.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:cgmo-webcgm-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Delivered-To: mailing list cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:38:44 -0700
>To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
>All --
>
>http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/OS/WebCGM20-Conf.html#deprecated
>
>When we standardized 2.0, then
>** deprecated 1.0-2nd-release features became obsolete in 2.0;
>** some new features were deprecated for 2.0;
>
>When we finish 2.1, will we do something similar?  (Probably.)  Do we 
>intend to make obsolete in 2.1 *all* of the bullets in 7.2.2?  Some of 
>them?  None of them?
>
>Deprecated in 2.0 meant that they could not appear in "ProfileEd=2.0" 
>metafiles, but there is some blither about viewers that want to claim 
>conforming support of legacy versions.
>
>Deprecated in 2.1 would mean ...similar...
>
>Except, now we have three layers -- 1.0, 2.0, 2.1.  So the viewer legacy 
>support blither in 2.1 would probably include both 2.0 and 1.0, yes?
>
>We'll need to sort this out in the next couple of weeks.  (Maybe it's 
>obvious and uncontroversial, but I'd like to hear opinions.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>