Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2017-02-16

One useful point I think made by that versioning document is the statement:

"However, one common expectation when using the major/minor version scheme
is that, for a given major version number, the Recommendation with the
highest minor version number supersedes all others sharing that major
version number. By supersede, we mean that authors and implementers should
stop using the old version and start using the new version; in effect the
new version masks the old one. The status section of a minor version should
state clearly that it supersedes the previous minor version."

This would indicate that there is an expectation that 1.1 supersedes a 1.0.
Now, this document doesn't discuss micro (dot dot) versioning, but one
might conclude that a 1.0.1 is not intended to supersede a 1.0.

So this raises in my mind the question of whether this new
version/amendment whatever of IMSC is intended to supersede the existing
document or not. Answering this question may give us guidance on this
matter.




On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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
> >>     ------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
>
>