Re: [emergency] CAP 1.2 numbering?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

According to my interpretation of the OASIS Naming Guidelines Part 2: 
Metadata and Versioning 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#version 
this would be 1.1.1. It is covered, so I suspect this is what we 
should do, but I am copying Mary McRae and ask that she review this.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:37 PM -0700 4/26/09, Art Botterell wrote:
>Alas, it appears we're asked for yet another uncomfortable 
>compromise for entirely non-technical reasons. 
>
>I'm told that at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last week, Tom 
>Beers of the FCC expressed some concern about using CAP 1.2 because 
>the Commission's Report and Order on EAS specified CAP 1.1. 
>("Technology advances, but Law persists.")  He reportedly suggested 
>calling it "CAP 1.1a" instead.
>
>I'm not much of stickler about numbering schemes, myself, as long as 
>things can be differentiated.  Under the circumstances, does anyone 
>see any insurmountable problem with calling the next version either 
>"1.1a" or perhaps "1.1.01"?
>
>- Art
>
>
>Art Botterell, Manager
>Community Warning System
>Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
>50 Glacier Drive
>Martinez, California 94553
>(925) 313-9603
>fax (925) 646-1120
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670