RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

I agree and vote for syncronize.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:45 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version


ISSUE:  Does the XCF version (attribute on <webcgm> element) match the 
WebCGM profile version, or is it independent?

DISCUSSION:  This was raised as a side question in the namespace URL thread:

>At 10:26 AM 6/4/2005 +0200, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
>One question:
>This is the namespace for the XML Companion File only, right?
>We decided that the version of the XCF is independent from the WebCGM
>version to allow for updates of the DTD without having to change
>the profile (Cologne).
>So what version number do we use for the DTD? 1.0?

The pre-Munich draft said only, "Represents the version of the WebCGM 
companion file."  The issue was discussed again at Munich, and the editing 
directives indicate that it was decided to synchronize XCF 'version' and 
the hosting WebCGM profile specification (XCF is published as a part of 
WebCGM profile).  The post-Munich CD text says, "Represents the version of 
the WebCGM specification. The value is set to 2.0 for this specification."

OPTIONS:

1.) Synchronized, per 2/2005 Munich decision.
2.) Change (back) to independent.

RECOMMENDATION:  Option 1, synchronized.