Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: XCF 'version' and derived profiles

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

It depends if version is REQUIRED or FIXED. If it's REQUIRED then the
answer is 2, if it's FIXED then both 1 and 2 are fine.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Thursday, August 4, 2005, 11:50:10 AM, Lofton wrote:

LH> WebCGM TC --

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

LH> version="CDATA"
LH> Represents the version of the WebCGM specification. The value
LH> is 2.0 forthis specification. Every conforming XCF must identify
LH> its version,either by including this attribute on the webcgm
LH> element, or by includinga DOCTYPE pointing to this WebCGM XCF's
LH> DTD, or both (recommended). Anindustry-specific profile derived
LH> from this WebCGM XCF specification mustnot use this attribute to
LH> identify its version, and should define andrequire use of a
LH> namespace attribute to identify its profileversion.


LH> QUESTION:  What do we mean for inclusion of version
LH> attributes inindustry-specific profiles:

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

LH> or 

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

LH> I think #2 is what we meant and makes the most sense. 
LH> I.e.,S1000D derives its 2.3 profile from WebCGM 2.0, and follows
LH> all theproper rules, so that it is still a conforming and valid
LH> 2.0 XCF (plusextensions).  So it identifies the base WebCGM
LH> version, and theS1000D-specific version.

LH> Agreed?

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

LH> -Lofton.