Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Questions

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

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.