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

Correcting myself and a bit of an update:
Turns out there already is history & precedent here. The spec *was* called
1.2 <http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/1.2/png-1.2.pdf>.

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 2:00 PM Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <
Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com> wrote:

> 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!
>