VersionNumber... understands that x.10 > x.9 (string comparisons get that wrong).
<rant>
I'd like to find the first person who started inflicting version numbers on the world like
v. 5.12.9, and whack him upside the head. Let's face it,
5.12.9 is not a number, in any numbering system I've ever seen.
The attempt to distinguish between "major," "minor," and "sub-minor" releases seems like a relic to me. It's particularly true with the current jAlbum license model, which isn't tied to a version number at all. If you buy a one-year license for jAlbum 14, for example, and within the next year there's a jAlbum 15 and a jAlbum 16, you end up with a jAlbum 16 license - the number is irrelevant.
I say dump it. Use whole numbers for release versions. For beta versions, perhaps
jAlbum 15 beta 1. Easy to tokenize, with numerics that are actual numbers.
Maybe use decimals for bug fixes. Start with
14.01, which gives you the chance to issue 99 bug fixes. Actually, you should start with
14.1 - if you have to issue more than 9 bug fixes, you're in the wrong business.

</rant>