Version number in file names

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

Hello UBL TC,

In putting together the initial test build for the next public
review, I was struck by how strange it seems to have just "2"
instead of "2.0" in the file names.

We discussed version numbering in namespace URIs for weeks, and I
think we're all clear on why we decided to use "2" instead of
"2.0" in the URIs.  But the decision to do the same for file names
seems to have been an afterthought.  In the minutes for 9 November
2005 we have simply the following:

   SG: [Regarding the decision to use "2" rather than "2.0" in
   namespaces] We should drop the minor version number from the
   file names as well.

   AGREED to use "2" in the major version file names rather than
   "2.0".

   AGREED that the version number is required.

Now I'm wondering whether we really had reasons beyond simple
parallelism in applying the same rule to the file names as the
namespace URIs.  And it's easy to think of scenarios in which we
will want to revise the schemas while still maintaining backward
compatibility, that is, scenarios in which we will want "2.1" in a
file name.

Can someone please remind me why we're omitting the minor version
number from file names?

Jon