Re: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Issue # 11

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

On 28 Jul 2005, at 01:10, Carl Reed OGC wrote:

> I support the idea of a version number 100%. Clients and servers need 
> to be able to do version negotiation. Without this, then 
> interoperability suffers (like perhaps none at all). All OGC specs 
> have version numbers as part of the interface specification and this 
> information is expressed in each interface call or payload encoding. 
> An interesting side benefit is that applications can then actually 
> support multiple CAP versions.

Carl/Patti - the CAP XML Namespace (which is mandatory) will always 
tell you what
version of CAP you are parsing. Isn't this the same thing? (or am I 
missing something?)


Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.