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

I think I agree with you.
That is part of why I wanted a clear PNG 2.0 distinction for the breaking
change. It would be separate but similar.
But you're right about HTML5 not being a breaking change.

Perhaps JPEG XL was the correct naming path then. We can use PNG 2.0 for
Third Edition and keep the core "PNG" unbroken. A break could involve a
change to the name.
I think the people who would even be aware of PNG updates (thus potential
excited users) are just as likely to become aware/excited over "PNG 2.0" or
"PNG XL".

That said, I'm still concerned about building user awareness and excitement.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:53 AM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> I think what’s difficult is getting people excited about a new format, be
> that an existing format extended in a way that’s not backwards compatible
> (and thus requires a new file signature, MIME type, etc.) or just a new
> format that solves an existing problem in a slightly better way.
>
> HTML5 was in fact created as a backwards compatible extension of
> HTML4-as-implemented, because at the end of the day XHTML 2.0 just didn’t
> have a very compelling value proposition. The fact that everyone was
> essentially already using it and did not have to do much to adapt is part
> of HTML’s ongoing success.
>
> As such, I’d be very hesitant about any backwards incompatible changes to
> PNG.
>
> > On 6. Jul 2024, at 12:52 PM, Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <
> programmax@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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!
>
>