RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Questions

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 03:30 AM 1/20/2005 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

> All,
>
> See embedded comments:
>
> Benoit Bezaire wrote on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:20 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
>   While reviewing chapter 5 of the latest spec, I came accross a
> few
>   issues.  I wrote them down...
>
>   a) Why are 'version' and 'filename' on the <webcgm>
> element
>   #REQUIRED instead of #IMPLIED?
>
>
> I don't completely
> remember but I think 'version' was not the CGM version, but the version
> of the WebCGM (file?) (spec?) (companion file?). 

Agreed that CGM Version doesn't make sense.  I don't think
"file" version makes sense either (I'm assuming you're
referring to something like a CVS version of a given file
instance).  So that leaves "spec" or "companion
file".

Presumably "spec" means WebCGM specification version? 
Then that would be equivalent to ProfileEd in WebCGM.  Since XCF is
defined within the WebCGM (2.0) specification, would there be any
difference between "spec" and "companion file"? 
(Note:  there *could* be, if we wanted to choose an XCF version
different from the WebCGM ProfileEd/spec version -- do we?)

Question:  if ATA or AECMA makes its own "cascaded" XCF,
based on a standard WebCGM XCF, is there any recommended way for them to
indicate in an XCF instance that it is an ATA-standard or AECMA-standard
XCF, albeit WebCGM XCF derived?  

-Lofton.