[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Questions
Hi Lofton, I think Dave was correct, I recall something like 'version' being a placeholder for users to store a version number of some sort. I think we all agree that 'version' meaning CGM version makes no sense. Answering: 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-standardXCF, albeit WebCGM XCF derived? Good question. We should probably consider a 'profile' or 'type' attribute on the outermost element. We (WebCGM) would set it to profile="webcgm"; and other groups could set it to profile="aecma". Would we need a 'profileVersion' attribute also? i.e., <webcgm profile="aecma" profileVersion="2.1" .../> -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Thursday, January 20, 2005, 9:45:40 AM, Lofton wrote: LH> At 03:30 AM 1/20/2005 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote: LH> All, LH> See embedded comments: LH> Benoit Bezaire wrote on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:20 AM LH> Hi all, LH> While reviewing chapter 5 of the latest spec, I came accross afew LH> issues. I wrote them down... LH> a) Why are 'version' and 'filename' on the <webcgm>element LH> #REQUIRED instead of #IMPLIED? LH> I don't completelyremember but I think 'version' was not the LH> CGM version, but the versionof the WebCGM (file?) (spec?) LH> (companion file?). LH> Agreed that CGM Version doesn't make sense. I don't LH> think"file" version makes sense either (I'm assuming LH> you'rereferring to something like a CVS version of a given LH> fileinstance). So that leaves "spec" or "companionfile". LH> Presumably "spec" means WebCGM specification version? Then LH> that would be equivalent to ProfileEd in WebCGM. Since XCF LH> isdefined within the WebCGM (2.0) specification, would there be LH> anydifference between "spec" and "companion file"? (Note: there LH> *could* be, if we wanted to choose an XCF versiondifferent from LH> the WebCGM ProfileEd/spec version -- do we?) LH> Question: if ATA or AECMA makes its own "cascaded" XCF,based LH> on a standard WebCGM XCF, is there any recommended way for them LH> toindicate in an XCF instance that it is an ATA-standard or LH> AECMA-standardXCF, albeit WebCGM XCF derived? LH> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]