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

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

According to today's telecon:

RESOLUTION:  sub-string APS are illegal in 2.0 and 1.0, and we will 
initiate an erratum for 2.0 at least (as well as 1.0 at lower priority) to 
clarify that.  (IMO, the erratum should wait until after we have a first 
draft of 2.1 finished.)

According to our issue-closure procedure, we will confirm this at the next 
telecon, unless anyone argues otherwise before then.

-Lofton.

At 12:33 PM 1/15/2008 -0500, Bezaire, Benoit wrote:
>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
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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