W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2005

Re: References to SMIL 2.1 in SVG 1.2

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:52:48 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, www-smil@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
Message-Id: <1108147968.11236.518.camel@seabright>
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:02 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> >There shouldn't be one. SMIL 2.0 2E is the end of the line for 2.0.
> >SMIL 2.1 takes over from here. That was what the SYMM WG committed to.
> 
> The Process document expects the Working Group to publish a Third
> Edition should there be errors in the document (and there are.)


The Process Document doesn't expect anything. The Process Document
explains how a WG can carry out its wishes. If there is no group who
wants to publish a document, it doesn't get published.

> SMIL 2.1 cannot "take over" as it normatively depends on SMIL 2.0.

I don't agree. 

> >"Latest version" is an ambiguous phrase when there are multiple versions
> >of a technology at various maturity levels all co-existing. We are
> >working to disambiguate the phrase.
> 
> The "Latest version" link in W3C Technical Reports was not ambiguous,
> it meant the latest version of the document. 

We have two Recommendations, for example: MathML 1.0 and MathML 2.0.
Both include a "Latest version" link. Does that mean:

 * Latest version of any MathML?
 * Latest version of MathML major revision 2.0?
 * Latest version of MathML major revision 2 any minor revision?
 * Latest version of MathML major revision 2 that is a Recommendation 
   even if there are newer minor revisions?
  
We survived quite well in a world with only version 1 of each document.
This issue is more acute now that we have more and more version 2
documents.


> This meaning should be
> restored and facilities such as "Latest SMIL 2 version" and "Latest
> SMIL Recommendation" should be strikken as those are moving targets
> and, as you point out, referring to a moving target is almost always
> problematic and should thus not be encouraged. 

I agree with that.


> Referring to the latest
> version of a document such as SMIL 2.0 is not problematic as it is not
> a moving target, such references are in fact very valuable as I've
> pointed out.

SMIL 2.0 is not a moving target, but SMIL 2 is. This is the WG's
own stance.

 _ Ian
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 18:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:55 UTC