- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:41:33 +0100
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
- Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
As I said there is no W3C policy for versionning numbering: XML used numbers and revisions. CSS and DOM are using levels. HTML is using numbers. So its up to the group to choose a label. thierry. Le 23/02/2017 à 18:32, Nigel Megitt a écrit : > Thank you Thierry, that is the closest we have to guidance on this issue > so far, however to my view it doesn't answer our core question, at least > not in any clear way. > > Nigel > > > On 23/02/2017, 17:00, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > >> The only document I am aware for versionning is the following >> Version Management in W3C Technical Reports >> https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions >> >> But it is rather old, and I don't know if it is still up-to-date. >> >> Thierry. >> >> >> Le 23/02/2017 à 16:21, Glenn Adams a écrit : >>> The formula for versions in the W3C and most projects in general is: >>> >>> * if conformance changes, then increment major version >>> * if conformance doesn't change, but new features are present, then >>> increment minor version >>> * if conformance doesn't change and no new features are present, then >>> increment or add micro version; alternatively, add a 2nd, 3rd, etc >>> Edition marker >>> >>> The changes between IMSC.next and IMSC1 are clearly in the second >>> category. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de >>> <mailto:tai@irt.de>> wrote: >>> >>> Am 16.02.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Nigel Megitt: >>>> Glenn: Are we going to change the version to 1.1 before >>>> publishing the next WD? >>>> >>>> Nigel: I'm not sure if it is better to do it earlier or later. >>>> Thierry? >>>> >>>> Thierry: I have to check this. >>>> >>>> Pierre: I recall Andreas and Mike really liking 1.0.1. >>>> >>>> Glenn: I think we should put it to the group and not make a >>>> change until we have consensus. >>>> ... It's worth having Thierry checking on what's possible here. >>>> >>>> Nigel: I can ask Mike and Andreas if they would object going to >>>> 1.1. >>> >>> I agree that it's best to seek consensus on the naming of the new >>> version and to evaluate different possibilities. I indeed liked the >>> 1.0.1 Version but would also happy to call it a second edition. I am >>> really reluctant to support the "1.1" version number. If you look at >>> other W3C specs (e.g. CSS 2 -> CSS 2.1 or XML Schema 1.0 -> XML >>> Schema 1.1) the change from 1.0 to 1.1 does not reflect the >>> difference between IMSC 1 and IMSC 1.next. I think it is great that >>> we show flexibility to integrate two late coming requirements from >>> the market to widen the adoption of IMSC 1. But if a labelling of >>> the new version would give the impression that this is major change >>> than this could be counter productive. >>> >>> As I understand Glenn's concern the 1.0.1 version number would be >>> quite uncommon for a W3C spec. I can understand this argument. But >>> possibly we can get some information what W3C version policy would >>> allow (so agreeing with Glenn's proposal to ask Thierry to check our >>> options). >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> Andreas Tai >>> Production Systems Television IRT - Institut fuer Rundfunktechnik >>> GmbH >>> R&D Institute of ARD, ZDF, DRadio, ORF and SRG/SSR >>> Floriansmuehlstrasse 60, D-80939 Munich, Germany >>> >>> Phone: +49 89 32399-389 <tel:+49%2089%2032399389> | Fax: +49 89 >>> 32399-200 <tel:+49%2089%2032399200> >>> http: www.irt.de <http://www.irt.de> | Email: tai@irt.de >>> <mailto:tai@irt.de> >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> registration court& managing director: >>> Munich Commercial, RegNo. B 5191 >>> Dr. Klaus Illgner-Fehns >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> > >
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 17:41:45 UTC