RE: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

OK....now clarify something for me, as I'm the one providing input to
the S1000D community...

I see talk about "20" and "2" being available.

I need a definitive answer to the following:

Do the non-hyperlinked references in S1000D look like:
REC-webcgm20-20070130
or
REC-webcgm2-20070130
?

Does the hyperlinked reference in S1000D point to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
or
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm2-20070130/
?

Thx...Dave


Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:57 AM
To: Lofton Henderson
Cc: Thierry Michel; Cruikshank, David W; WebCGM WG
Subject: Re: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

Hi Lofton,

I just finished a phone call with Thierry, who indicated that in his
experience with SMIL, it is convenient to be able to be able to type the
short URI (/TR/SMIL20) and get the SMIL 2.0 Recommendation.
The SMIL 2.0 Recommendation will (to the best of W3C's ability) always
be available at the dated URI, but that is more difficult to remember.

In light of people's availability today and the need for this to be done
today, I suggest the following URIs in the Recommendation:

Latest WebCGM 2.0 version:
          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/ Latest WebCGM Recommendation:
          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/

This is not my preference, but at this late date, I'm ok with the above.

Meanwhile, you now have the shortname webcgm2. If you publish a WebCGM
2.1, you can start using /TR/webcgm2 at that time to point to WebCGM 2.1
(and 2.x henceforth). People guessing a URI, for example, would
therefore land on the latest 2.x. What we lose is people landing on 2.x
when reading the 2.0 Recommendation. But, if 2.1 becomes the newest
Recommendation (before 3.x), then the /TR/webcgm URI will take them to
2.1 from 2.0.

I appreciate your time and hope this solution enables you to proceed
smoothly.

 - Ian


On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 07:00 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 1/5/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
> 
> >Ian,
> >
> >Sorry to enter late in this discussion
> 
> Yes, the decision was made yesterday, and the request has been sent to

> the Director.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> >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.
> >
> >as
> >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.
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL20/
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>-Lofton.
> >>>
> >>>>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
> >>>>>[2]
> >>>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/01/04-webcgm-min
> >>>>utes.html
> >>>>>Particulars...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1.) Relationship of 2.0/1.0 in the SoTD -- no problem, the WG 
> >>>>>agreed to
> >>>>the
> >>>>>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 (1/12)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[I'm available to confer this afternoon, if need be, but mostly
> >>>>unavailable
> >>>>>during the day Friday.]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>-Lofton.
> >>>>--
> >>>>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >>>>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
> >
> >
> >
> 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 5 January 2007 18:49:38 UTC