RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: retroactivity of sub-string APS in WebCGM

["Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>]

I would go for 3)
We can't expect "old" 1.0 and 2.0 to support these "new" 1.0 and 2.0
files.

Benoit 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: retroactivity of sub-string APS in WebCGM

[...2nd of 2 new issues about sub-string APS in WebCGM...]

ISSUE:  Should the sub-string APS functionality that will be documented
in WebCGM 2.1 also apply to 2.0 (and even 1.0)?

DISCUSSION:  It is a fact about ISO corrigenda that they are, after
approval, considered to be part of the subject standard from Day 1 of
that standard.  I.e., it is as if sub-string APS had been a clear
explicit part of CGM:1999 since 1999.

Therefore, the question arises:  are sub-string APS legal in the 1.0 and
2.0 profiles?  Presently, the text of 1.0 and the text of 2.0 do not
mention sub-string APS, and do not place any restrictions on them.  But
since they are a part of CGM:1999, and not restricted, it could be
argued that they are legal in 1.0 and 2.0.

It is possible that we want them to be legal, but that would have
conformance implications on all implementations.  And if we *did* want
them to be legal, we would certainly want to impose whatever profile
restrictions we decide for 2.1 [1].  Therefore, if we did want them to
be legal, we would need an erratum to 1.0 and an erratum to 2.0.

[1]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200801/msg00038.html

In fact, if we do *not* want them to be legal in 1.0 and 2.0, we should
probably still have an erratum to explicitly prohibit them, now that the
CGM:1999 standard has been clarified.  This would be non-substantive --
no implementors thought sub-string APS were possible in 1.0/2.0 -- and a
low-priority project.

OPTIONS:  (Chose one or more of the following:)

1.) legal in 2.0, clarify with 2.0 erratum
2.) legal in 1.0, clarify with 1.0 erratum
3.) not legal in 2.0, clarify with 2.0 erratum
4.) not legal in 1.0, clarify with 1.0 erratum
5.) other

RECOMMENDATION:  #3 and #4.

Regards,
-Lofton.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php