W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2017

Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2017-02-16

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:00:47 +0100
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5c3e7a1b-be24-bb9a-fc37-b2f8c19784d2@w3.org>
The only document I am aware for versionning is the following
Version Management in W3C Technical Reports
https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions

But it is rather old, and I don't know if it is still up-to-date.

Thierry.


Le 23/02/2017 à 16:21, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> The formula for versions in the W3C and most projects in general is:
>
>   * if conformance changes, then increment major version
>   * if conformance doesn't change, but new features are present, then
>     increment minor version
>   * if conformance doesn't change and no new features are present, then
>     increment or add micro version; alternatively, add a 2nd, 3rd, etc
>     Edition marker
>
> The changes between IMSC.next and IMSC1 are clearly in the second category.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de
> <mailto:tai@irt.de>> wrote:
>
>     Am 16.02.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Nigel Megitt:
>>      Glenn: Are we going to change the version to 1.1 before
>>        publishing the next WD?
>>
>>        Nigel: I'm not sure if it is better to do it earlier or later.
>>        Thierry?
>>
>>        Thierry: I have to check this.
>>
>>        Pierre: I recall Andreas and Mike really liking 1.0.1.
>>
>>        Glenn: I think we should put it to the group and not make a
>>        change until we have consensus.
>>        ... It's worth having Thierry checking on what's possible here.
>>
>>        Nigel: I can ask Mike and Andreas if they would object going to
>>        1.1.
>
>     I agree that it's best to seek consensus on the naming of the new
>     version and to evaluate different possibilities. I indeed liked the
>     1.0.1 Version but would also happy to call it a second edition. I am
>     really reluctant to support the "1.1" version number. If you look at
>     other W3C specs (e.g. CSS 2 -> CSS 2.1 or XML Schema 1.0 -> XML
>     Schema 1.1) the change from 1.0 to 1.1 does not reflect the
>     difference between IMSC 1 and IMSC 1.next. I think it is great that
>     we show flexibility to integrate two late coming requirements from
>     the market to widen the adoption of IMSC 1. But if a labelling of
>     the new version would give the impression that this is major change
>     than this could be counter productive.
>
>     As I understand Glenn's concern the 1.0.1 version number would be
>     quite uncommon for a W3C spec. I can understand this argument. But
>     possibly we can get some information what W3C version policy would
>     allow (so agreeing with Glenn's proposal to ask Thierry to check our
>     options).
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Andreas
>
>
>     --
>     ------------------------------------------------
>     Andreas Tai
>     Production Systems Television IRT - Institut fuer Rundfunktechnik GmbH
>     R&D Institute of ARD, ZDF, DRadio, ORF and SRG/SSR
>     Floriansmuehlstrasse 60, D-80939 Munich, Germany
>
>     Phone: +49 89 32399-389 <tel:+49%2089%2032399389> | Fax: +49 89 32399-200 <tel:+49%2089%2032399200>
>     http: www.irt.de <http://www.irt.de> | Email: tai@irt.de <mailto:tai@irt.de>
>     ------------------------------------------------
>
>     registration court&  managing director:
>     Munich Commercial, RegNo. B 5191
>     Dr. Klaus Illgner-Fehns
>     ------------------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 17:00:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:38 UTC