- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:09:48 -0600
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fo6WB+jMMJkTcWWNeLcpRdJBx=+GTtinBGPWas_fuxgQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > ... > > there is possible harm in failing to give notice of such a change and > then implement the change, which may cause some surprise. > > What harm are you envisaging exactly, caused by this surprise? > I should think it is obvious. Readers may: - erroneously conclude that 1.0.1 signals a non-substantive, editorial only fix - start promulgating usage of a mislabelled version - prematurely create what would become legacy references to the wrong version number Shall I go on? > > > > * From:* Glenn Adams [glenn@skynav.com] > *Sent:* 15 March 2017 20:11 > *To:* Nigel Megitt > *Cc:* Pierre-Anthony Lemieux; public-tt@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: IMSC 1.0.1 WD for WR > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> > wrote: > >> It seems relatively pain free to remove the word "minor"; I would also >> support adding a reference to a change history or diff relative to IMSC1 to >> clarify exactly what the differences are. >> >> We agreed to take the version numbering issue up again at CR; given that >> deferral, I do not believe we need to forewarn the world of a potential >> change we may make in the future to the name/version number. Rather, if we >> do end up making a change to the version number in a future transition >> stage of the document then we should back-reference to the previously used >> name and version number instead so the history is clear. >> > > It is important, IMO, to communicate potentially important changes that > may occur in the SoTD. It reduces the surprise factor. There is no harm in > saying the version may change and have it not change at CR; while there is > possible harm in failing to give notice of such a change and then implement > the change, which may cause some surprise. > > >> >> We already agreed to communicate the potential change to the name and >> number in the liaison text that will be sent to initiate the wide review >> and I do not believe we need to do any more at this stage. >> >> Nigel >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Glenn Adams [glenn@skynav.com] >> *Sent:* 15 March 2017 00:57 >> *To:* Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> *Cc:* public-tt@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: IMSC 1.0.1 WD for WR >> >> Please add text to the SoTD that the version and/or title may be changed >> prior to CR. In addition, please remove the word "minor" from "minor >> revision" in the SoTD, as that calls for a judgment about which we do not >> have consensus. >> >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Good morning/evening, >>> >>> Please find at [1] at candidate IMSC 1.0.1 WD for wide review. >>> >>> [1] https://rawgit.com/w3c/imsc/WR-imsc-1.0.1/imsc1/spec/ttml-ww >>> -profiles.html >>> >>> I have set the publication date to 21 March 2017 tentatively. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -- Pierre >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 21:10:41 UTC