I don't quite understand all the excitement about version numbers. We
adopted a scheme for this several years ago that is simple and sufficient.
I don't think it matters particularly if different WGs assign version
numbers differently, as long as the general structure as already documented
is used.
There is no special meaning to 0.9 or 0.99 as opposed to a simple progression. The comments in the document are suggestive only.
A WD1.0, PR1.0, and REC1.0 can all be identical (and generally are) save for the boilerplate text at the beginning that identifies the status of the document.
Let's put our collective energy into the content of the documents themselves rather than arguing about version numbers.
Bob
On 6/24/08 11:23 AM, "Bruno Rino" <brino-at-eso.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On 24/06/2008 12:16, Norman Gray wrote:
>> In fact the document is self-contradictory, since it says in section >> 5, "The version numbering scheme for [...] Recommendations follows the >> same pattern[...], beginning with version 1.0: '1.0 // first formal >> release of the document at this level", but then almost immediately >> says "PR V2.1 becomes REC V2.1".