RE: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 04:24 PM 2/14/2006 +0100, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:07 PM
> > To: dieter@itedo.com; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] 1.0 tests modified for 2.0
> >
> >...But I don't want to argue
> > that again.
>Good.

So, while I won't reargue the merits or demerits of one default behavior 
over another, and I am willing to accept (tho' I consider it inferior) a 
different default behavior for 2.0 viewers handling 2.0 content, 
nevertheless...

I do think we are making a mistake in specifying that 2.0 viewers shall 
handle 1.0 content according to the different 2.0 rules (mapping).  It is 
the solution of MOST surprise rather than the solution of LEAST 
surprise.  Merely by getting an upgrade from Ematek or LST or SDI to their 
2.0 viewer, all of XYZ Corp's legacy 1.0 content displays differently.

What is wrong with saying that 2.0 viewers shall handle 1.0 content 
according to 1.0 rules?  It continues the status quo of the last 5 years, 
for both Itedo and the other viewer vendors, as well as for users with 1.0 
legacy content.

Thoughts?

(...and how about some users and other vendors giving their opinions?)

-Lofton.