QUESTION: XCF 'version' and derived profiles

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

WebCGM TC --

We discussed this once in the past, but I can't find a detailed
record.  It is about the 'version' attribute on the XCF 'webcgm'
element.  This is the current text:

> version="CDATA"
> Represents the version of the WebCGM specification. The value is 2.0 for
> this specification. Every conforming XCF must identify its version,
> either by including this attribute on the webcgm element, or by including
> a DOCTYPE pointing to this WebCGM XCF's DTD, or both (recommended). An
> industry-specific profile derived from this WebCGM XCF specification must
> not use this attribute to identify its version, and should define and
> require use of a namespace attribute to identify its profile
> version.

QUESTION:  What do we mean for inclusion of version attributes in
industry-specific profiles:

1.) Only use the namespaced version?
<webcgm asd:version="2.3"
xmlns:asd="http://...blah..." ...>

or 

2.) Use both?
<webcgm version="2.0" asd:version="2.3"
xmlns:asd="http://...blah..." ...>
(or)
<webcgm version="2.0" asd:s1000d-version="2.3"
xmlns:asd="http://...blah..." ...>

I think #2 is what we meant and makes the most sense.  I.e.,
S1000D derives its 2.3 profile from WebCGM 2.0, and follows all the
proper rules, so that it is still a conforming and valid 2.0 XCF (plus
extensions).  So it identifies the base WebCGM version, and the
S1000D-specific version.

Agreed?

(I will add an example to clarify what we mean.)

-Lofton.