Re: [PNG] Cancel upcoming meeting?

On 2025-02-27 16:43, Chris Blume (ProgramMax) wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We have a meeting on Monday. If we cancel, that will be 2 in a row.
> But we're in a bit of a holding pattern, I think. Is this right, Chris L?
Yes.
> I believe our Call for Consensus has resulted in a Candidate 
> Recommendation snapshot.

Not quite, but I am building the transition request (including updating 
the implementation report and documenting the required review and liaisons).

> I think our next step is to transition to Proposed Recommendation, 
> then submit to W3C for Recommendation approval.
>
> If we have nothing to discuss, I suggest we cancel.
I agree (especially as I have a virtual meeting on Japan time, so sleep 
is cancelled)
>
> We should start talking about Fourth Edition. But I'm hesitant to dig 
> into it deeply until Third Edition is finalized. So for now, perhaps 
> think about it / let it stew / comment on github issues.
> Two topics I think will make it into Fourth Edition:
>
>   * Restart markers to allow parallel decoding (several
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/60> github
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/54> issues
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/41>)
>
Restart markers look good, and are backwards compatible.
>
>   * Compression other than deflate (github issue
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/39>)
>       o Existing images continue to work in existing decoders. Old
>         decoders would not be able to decode new images. My
>         understanding is this doesn't constitute a "break".
>
It isn't a break but it is an incompatible new version; the entire new 
image is unviewable. That is rather different to the situation where an 
image decodes, and is viewable, but some metadata is ignored and it 
views sub-optimally.
> One (maybe two) topic(s) with some pushback might not make it:
>
>   * Gain maps (github issue <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/380>)
>   * Generic image data (github issue
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/493>)
>
> One topic might, depending on timing:
>
>   * dWLm, which I believe depends on ISO 22028-5. Has that been
>     published? If so, it will probably make it in. (github issue
>     <https://github.com/w3c/png/issues/390>)
>
My understanding is that it has not been published (and when it is, it 
will be paywalled).

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus@mastodon.scot
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Technical Programming Team, Core Web Design