OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Questions


Title: RE: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Questions

Dear all,

I remmember Cologne meeting about Version as Required, it was to ensure that the user agent has a mean to recognize the companion file is going to handle (and eventually claims that he is not compliant) for the WebCGM related stuff. Version was then supposed to be a container for the version of the XCF as defined in WebCGM. ATA, ASD or other changes were supposed not affect it, as by definition everything that is defined by this organisms is not supported (except DOM Access) by the user agent.

Best Regards,

Franck DULUC
Technical Data Research Manager
Customer Services - SDND
AIRBUS France

Phone: +33 (0)5 61 18 19 16
Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 59 44
mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com

Address:
BP D0611, 316, route de Bayonne
31060 TOULOUSE Cedex, FRANCE


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 janvier 2005 16:31
> À : CGM Open WebCGM TC
> Objet : 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.
>
>
>
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]