Pat
The challenge with supporting v2.0 of LandXML that is really just a Carlson version of LandXML since they took over the "standard" in that time frame. We also have to support Leicas version of LandXML (HexML), Topcons Version of LandXML (MaXML) and also the European Version of LandXML called Inframodel (which is at v4 now).
The second challenge is who else supports LandXML 2.0 - there aren't many companies that write 2.0 Files that I know of - I will check with contacts at Bentley and Autodesk for example - so when the world is still writing 1.x (which was an Official Standard) it is hard to put effort into v2.0 which we are not seeing files provided in that way (at least not very often if at all)
The benefit of a Standard at least is that if elements are added by a vendor that extend the standard then an "old version reader" will still work by ignoring the new coded elements.
I will look into this again with other vendors to see how worthwhile the support is.
I would hope that exchange between e.g. BC-HCE / TBC and SiteVision / Connect would not depend on an open format like LandXML and would read a rich internal format like VCE / VCL instead.
Also I have not read the spec for the Cross Section Tables in LandXML 2.0 however I find it hard to believe that there is any format that can reliably recreate Cross Section Templates from all of the software vendors out there - Again I will take a look at it, but I am not confident that this is "easy" to achieve.
We already import the data that we have always read from LandXML from a v2 File - but we currently do not support the Texturing etc and some of the other features of 2.0.
Let me take a look at this Pat
Alan