Re: [EXTERNAL] [PNG] Thoughts on semver-ish naming? "Third Edition" -> 1.3

I totally agree! (PNG 2.0)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 6:52:42 AM
To: Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <public-png@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PNG] Thoughts on semver-ish naming? "Third Edition" -> 1.3

Hello everyone,

Currently, we are calling it PNG Third Edition. This follows the previous naming convention.

Many of us in this group lean more towards engineering, which will bias us on form vs. function. But if we put on our marketing hats for a bit, I want to discuss naming and how it might help with adoption.

Think about HTML5 and CSS3.

People know about it. They know there have been updates. They can then look into the updates and get excited about them. That excitement also assists in adoption as users want the new features. If the users don't know, they can't.

I believe this would also help in adoption if we eventually make breaking changes and move to 2.0. There are already some useful features we want to add but they would be a large enough change that they likely will cause adoption problems. And it will be difficult to explain "This program supports PNG Fourth Edition, but that program only supports PNG Third Edition".


JPEG XL is an example of why I'm concerned about this. JPEG XL is an amazing advancement. But despite its technical advantages, it is facing an uphill battle on adoption. I think people would agree that it is good that the web has advanced with HTML5 and CSS3. It is a shame that image advancement seems to face more hurdles.

I am not a marketing expert. JPEG XL seems like a better name than say "JPEG Fifth Edition" (making up that number). And even still, it faces adoption headwinds. With my limited expertise here, I speculate that JPEG5 would have made it feel like a more natural thing to adopt. But I do not know that for sure.


If we do like the idea of 1.3 instead of "Third Edition" (and eventually 2.0), there is another topic to discuss:
First Edition would have been 1.0. Second Edition would have been 1.1. That means Third Edition would be 1.2, not 1.3.

I could be wrong, but I think 1.2 & "Third Edition" takes a split second of hesitation that lends towards silly mistakes. And even though 1.3 would be wrong, I think it removes that hesitation.


Do you all have thoughts on favoring numbered versions over "Third Edition" wording?
And do you have thoughts on 1.2 vs. 1.3?
Further, does anyone have marketing connections to help us here?

Thanks!