Why we did not introduce an attribute for versioning in the FPDAM1 set

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi Murata-san,

I agree with your points. We discussed this rather intensively in
Copenhagen last summer, and we deferred this due to our problems with
defining a versioning-strategy also in terms of major/minor-updates.

Our reasoning was that we should not introduce a versioning attribute if
we could not provide (at the same time) a strategy for using it.


Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: 7. januar 2010 03:44
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Why we did not introduce an attribute for versioning in the
> FPDAM1 set
> 
> More than one member body mentioned versioning attributes for
> distinguishing 29500 and Emca-376:3008.
> 
> In my understanding, we did not introduce such a versioning attribute
> for two reasons.
> First, we were not able to figure out the interaction between the
> version
> attribute and MCE.  Second, if a versioning attribute is optional, we
> cannot tell which is which when it is omitted; if it is mandatory,
> every
> existing OOXML document would be forced to be non-conformant to 29500
> as
> amended.
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto