W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:00:40 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,"Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 01:18 PM 1/5/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Sorry to enter late in this discussion

Yes, the decision was made yesterday, and the request has been sent to the 

I agree that this would have been better done earlier.  However, no one at 
all spoke out against it.

If there is any serious controversy at all about it, we should withdraw the 
request immediately.  We can live with the old way, and we can live with 
the new way.  What we cannot live with is any delay whatsoever.  The 
constituents of ASD/S1000D are already in a near critical situation because 
of our delays.

This must be resolved immediately, today.  Unfortunately, I will be away 
from the office for the rest of the day, until late afternoon.  Therefore I 
must leave it to you (staff, the WG, Comm, and the constituents) to decide 
whether the request is ill-considered and should be rescinded.


>as I am on vacation.
>My understanding is that you would like to have *new* shortnames
>Latest WebCGM 2 version:
>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm2/
>Latest WebCGM Recommendation:
>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/
>I do not understand why at last minute you are requesting such change. The 
>"webcgm20" short name was discussed and agreed by Tim for our first 
>publication of 2.0 version. Why was your request not done at that time ?
>Changing at this point the short name from "webcgm20" to "webcgm2" will 
>not be consistent with previous 2.0 versions.
>We have experienced the same issue with SMIL for SMIL 2.0 and SMIL 2.1.
>the SYMM WG experienced that these short name are not convenient for 
>referencing a specific version of SMIL.
>for example have the short name for SMIL 2.0, when one wants to refer to it.
>Latest SMIL 2 version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL2/
>Latest SMIL Recommendation:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL/
>Both link to (SMIL 2.1) Recommendation 13 December 2005
>Therefore one needs to have the following short name to refer to 2.0 version.
>Therefore, I suggest that we keep the "webcgm20" short name to facilitate 
>referencing to WebCGM 2.0 version, as it was previously decided.
>  B. Jacobs wrote:
>>On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:10 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>Hi Ian,
>>>At 01:17 PM 1/4/2007 -0600, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>>>>Hi Lofton,
>>>>I'm glad to hear there was support. I have chatted with Steve Bratt to
>>>>let him know that a request is on the way, and fill him in so that he
>>>>can do a quick "yes" turnaround.
>>>Thanks for that.
>>>>Can you send a request to timbl@w3.org,
>>>>steve@w3.org, cc webreq@w3.org asking for the shortnames webcgm and
>>>>webcgm2, and indicating that you are doing this based on the advice of:
>>>>  http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
>>>>in time for the WebCGM 2.0 Recommendation?
>>>Will do, this afternoon.  Couple more quick questions...
>>>Assuming that you already briefed him about the anxiety level amongst 
>>>ASD/S1000D editors, should I therefore avoid further mention of 
>>>"critical time constraints"?
>>I didn't mention the ASD/S1000D editors. I did say that this was
>>time-sensitive. I think he should be able to say "yes" in a matter
>>of minutes. I'll keep an eye on the request.
>>>What level of explanation do I need about the two shortnames?  Should I 
>>>just point to ".../tr-version", plus your thread message about it, and 
>>>maybe also my explanatory message to the WG?
>>I think not much text is necessary; URIs to threads and to tr-version
>>seem sufficient. I will be on hand to answer questions.
>>  _ Ian
>>>>On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:33 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>>Hi Ian,
>>>>>The WG discussed the topic [1] at today's telecon [2], and are happy to go
>>>>>with your suggestions about shortnames.  There is one proviso:  timing is
>>>>>very critical now.  I'm copying Dave, as he is plugged into that with ASD
>>>>>and the S1000D publication.
>>>>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Jan/0007
>>>>>1.) Relationship of 2.0/1.0 in the SoTD -- no problem, the WG agreed to
>>>>>principles to be expressed and we're refining some wording.
>>>>>2.) Dual shortnames, one for WebCGM technology as a whole, and one for
>>>>>WebCGM 2 branch (or WebCGM 3 branch in the future, if it goes that far) --
>>>>>no problem.  Ignoring for the moment the potential change, s/20/2/, the
>>>>>cover page "Latest version" would become:
>>>>>Latest WebCGM 2 version:
>>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/
>>>>>Latest WebCGM Recommendation:
>>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/
>>>>>and "This version" would become:
>>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
>>>>>3.) We're fine in principle with s/20/2/, but this is the aspect where
>>>>>timing is very critical -- we believe it must be approved by Friday week
>>>>>(1/12), or remain as "20", even though that has counter-intuitive
>>>>>implications when pointing at a (potential) future 2.1 minor version.
>>>>>Explanation.  The S1000D editor has already incorporated (just this week),
>>>>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/ (in link URIs)
>>>>>[4] REC-webcgm20-20070130 (derived labels referring to WebCGM 2.0)
>>>>>When asked, "what is the practical drop-dead for the change s/20/2/?", the
>>>>>answer was "Last November".  So they (ASD) are just about stretched to
>>>>>their limit.
>>>>>Do you think we could get the shortnames revision approved by Friday week
>>>>>[I'm available to confer this afternoon, if need be, but mostly
>>>>>during the day Friday.]
>>>>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>>>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 5 January 2007 14:15:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC