Re: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

Lofton,


As Ian confirmed, we will be using the initial short name "webcgm20" for 
the WebCGM 2.0 version.

Therefore I confirm that the REC URIs will be

This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/


We still have "webcgm2" short name that we may use for a future WebCGM 
2.x version.

Thierry.



Henderson wrote:
> I am at a loss what to do now...
> 
> At 06:56 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 10:49 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>> > 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
>>
>> Given the above discussion, I believe the choice is to use
>> REC-webcgm20-20070130
> 
> "the choice" ... ummm ... Given that the Director approved webcgm2, not 
> webcgm20, what do we do now?
> 
> The clock is ticking, and we still do not have an *approved* solution 
> that we can tell to the users and constituents.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
>> >
>> > Does the hyperlinked reference in S1000D point to:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^that one.
>>
>>  _ Ian
>>
>>
>> > 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 Saturday, 6 January 2007 09:49:01 UTC