Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE closed: getWebCGMViewerVersion() poll results

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi Benoit,

No objection here.  But will you give me a snippet of draft text and tell 
me where it goes in the specification?

Cheers,
-Lofton.

At 10:30 AM 6/7/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Unless someone objects before Wednesday telecon, this question is
>resolved as: Proposal B (poll result), but also:
>
>- The APIs will be documented in the specification.
>- The APIs will be at the plug-in level (i.e., at the same level as
>getWebCGMMetafile()).
>
>--
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>
>Monday, May 30, 2005, 9:50:06 AM, Benoit wrote:
>
>BB> Hi,
>
>BB>   We have 3 votes for A (Forrest, Don, Benoit) and 3 votes for B
>BB>   (Stuart, Dave, Frank). Implementors vs users :-)
>
>BB>   Since I believe this to be a very minor issue compared to other
>BB>   things we have to resolved; I propose we let the Editor (Lofton)
>BB>   break the tie (I suspect every body to be telling themselves "let's
>BB>   just agree on something" :). (It's the case for me).
>
>
>BB> Proposal A:
>BB> string getWebCGMViewerVersion()
>BB>   returns a string identifying the User Agent being used (ex: Lofton's
>BB>   viewer v3.2.2)
>
>BB> Proposal B:
>BB> string getAppName()
>BB>   returns the application name (ex: Lofton's viewer).
>
>BB> string getAppVersion()
>BB>   returns the application version number (ex: 3.2.2)
>
>BB>   Regards,