RE: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 10:49 -0800, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
> OK....now clarify something for me, as I'm the one providing input to
> the S1000D community...
> 
> I see talk about "20" and "2" being available.
> 
> I need a definitive answer to the following:
> 
> Do the non-hyperlinked references in S1000D look like:
> REC-webcgm20-20070130
> or
> REC-webcgm2-20070130

Given the above discussion, I believe the choice is to use
REC-webcgm20-20070130

> 
> Does the hyperlinked reference in S1000D point to:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/

^^^^^^^^^that one.

 _ Ian


> or
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm2-20070130/
> ?
> 
> Thx...Dave
> 
> 
> Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
> Boeing Commercial Airplane
> 206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
> david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:57 AM
> To: Lofton Henderson
> Cc: Thierry Michel; Cruikshank, David W; WebCGM WG
> Subject: Re: WebCGM shortnames and timing.
> 
> Hi Lofton,
> 
> I just finished a phone call with Thierry, who indicated that in his
> experience with SMIL, it is convenient to be able to be able to type the
> short URI (/TR/SMIL20) and get the SMIL 2.0 Recommendation.
> The SMIL 2.0 Recommendation will (to the best of W3C's ability) always
> be available at the dated URI, but that is more difficult to remember.
> 
> In light of people's availability today and the need for this to be done
> today, I suggest the following URIs in the Recommendation:
> 
> Latest WebCGM 2.0 version:
>           http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/ Latest WebCGM Recommendation:
>           http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/
> 
> This is not my preference, but at this late date, I'm ok with the above.
> 
> Meanwhile, you now have the shortname webcgm2. If you publish a WebCGM
> 2.1, you can start using /TR/webcgm2 at that time to point to WebCGM 2.1
> (and 2.x henceforth). People guessing a URI, for example, would
> therefore land on the latest 2.x. What we lose is people landing on 2.x
> when reading the 2.0 Recommendation. But, if 2.1 becomes the newest
> Recommendation (before 3.x), then the /TR/webcgm URI will take them to
> 2.1 from 2.0.
> 
> I appreciate your time and hope this solution enables you to proceed
> smoothly.
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 07:00 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > At 01:18 PM 1/5/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
> > 
> > >Ian,
> > >
> > >Sorry to enter late in this discussion
> > 
> > Yes, the decision was made yesterday, and the request has been sent to
> 
> > the Director.
> > 
> > I agree that this would have been better done earlier.  However, no 
> > one at all spoke out against it.
> > 
> > If there is any serious controversy at all about it, we should 
> > withdraw the request immediately.  We can live with the old way, and 
> > we can live with the new way.  What we cannot live with is any delay 
> > whatsoever.  The constituents of ASD/S1000D are already in a near 
> > critical situation because of our delays.
> > 
> > This must be resolved immediately, today.  Unfortunately, I will be 
> > away from the office for the rest of the day, until late afternoon.  
> > Therefore I must leave it to you (staff, the WG, Comm, and the 
> > constituents) to decide whether the request is ill-considered and
> should be rescinded.
> > 
> > -Lofton.
> > 
> > >as I am on vacation.
> > >
> > >My understanding is that you would like to have *new* shortnames 
> > >Latest WebCGM 2 version:
> > >          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm2/ Latest WebCGM Recommendation:
> > >          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/
> > >
> > >
> > >I do not understand why at last minute you are requesting such 
> > >change. The "webcgm20" short name was discussed and agreed by Tim for
> 
> > >our first publication of 2.0 version. Why was your request not done
> at that time ?
> > >
> > >Changing at this point the short name from "webcgm20" to "webcgm2" 
> > >will not be consistent with previous 2.0 versions.
> > >
> > >
> > >We have experienced the same issue with SMIL for SMIL 2.0 and SMIL
> 2.1.
> > >
> > >the SYMM WG experienced that these short name are not convenient for 
> > >referencing a specific version of SMIL.
> > >
> > >for example have the short name for SMIL 2.0, when one wants to refer
> to it.
> > >
> > >as
> > >Latest SMIL 2 version:
> > >     http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL2/
> > >Latest SMIL Recommendation:
> > >     http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL/
> > >
> > >Both link to (SMIL 2.1) Recommendation 13 December 2005
> > >
> > >Therefore one needs to have the following short name to refer to 2.0
> version.
> > >http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL20/
> > >
> > >Therefore, I suggest that we keep the "webcgm20" short name to 
> > >facilitate referencing to WebCGM 2.0 version, as it was previously
> decided.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  B. Jacobs wrote:
> > >>On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:10 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > >>>Hi Ian,
> > >>>
> > >>>At 01:17 PM 1/4/2007 -0600, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > >>>>Hi Lofton,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I'm glad to hear there was support. I have chatted with Steve 
> > >>>>Bratt to let him know that a request is on the way, and fill him 
> > >>>>in so that he can do a quick "yes" turnaround.
> > >>>Thanks for that.
> > >>>
> > >>>>Can you send a request to timbl@w3.org, steve@w3.org, cc 
> > >>>>webreq@w3.org asking for the shortnames webcgm and webcgm2, and 
> > >>>>indicating that you are doing this based on the advice of:
> > >>>>  http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
> > >>>>
> > >>>>in time for the WebCGM 2.0 Recommendation?
> > >>>Will do, this afternoon.  Couple more quick questions...
> > >>>
> > >>>Assuming that you already briefed him about the anxiety level 
> > >>>amongst ASD/S1000D editors, should I therefore avoid further 
> > >>>mention of "critical time constraints"?
> > >>I didn't mention the ASD/S1000D editors. I did say that this was 
> > >>time-sensitive. I think he should be able to say "yes" in a matter 
> > >>of minutes. I'll keep an eye on the request.
> > >>
> > >>>What level of explanation do I need about the two shortnames?  
> > >>>Should I just point to ".../tr-version", plus your thread message 
> > >>>about it, and maybe also my explanatory message to the WG?
> > >>I think not much text is necessary; URIs to threads and to 
> > >>tr-version seem sufficient. I will be on hand to answer questions.
> > >>  _ Ian
> > >>
> > >>>Thanks,
> > >>>-Lofton.
> > >>>
> > >>>>On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 11:33 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > >>>>>Hi Ian,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>The WG discussed the topic [1] at today's telecon [2], and are 
> > >>>>>happy to go with your suggestions about shortnames.  There is one
> 
> > >>>>>proviso:  timing is very critical now.  I'm copying Dave, as he 
> > >>>>>is plugged into that with ASD and the S1000D publication.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>[1] 
> > >>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Jan/0007
> > >>>>>[2]
> > >>>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/01/04-webcgm-min
> > >>>>utes.html
> > >>>>>Particulars...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>1.) Relationship of 2.0/1.0 in the SoTD -- no problem, the WG 
> > >>>>>agreed to
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>>principles to be expressed and we're refining some wording.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>2.) Dual shortnames, one for WebCGM technology as a whole, and 
> > >>>>>one for WebCGM 2 branch (or WebCGM 3 branch in the future, if it 
> > >>>>>goes that far) -- no problem.  Ignoring for the moment the 
> > >>>>>potential change, s/20/2/, the cover page "Latest version" would
> become:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Latest WebCGM 2 version:
> > >>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/ Latest WebCGM 
> > >>>>>Recommendation:
> > >>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>and "This version" would become:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>          http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>3.) We're fine in principle with s/20/2/, but this is the aspect 
> > >>>>>where timing is very critical -- we believe it must be approved 
> > >>>>>by Friday week (1/12), or remain as "20", even though that has 
> > >>>>>counter-intuitive implications when pointing at a (potential)
> future 2.1 minor version.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Explanation.  The S1000D editor has already incorporated (just 
> > >>>>>this week),
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webcgm20/ (in link URIs) [4] 
> > >>>>>REC-webcgm20-20070130 (derived labels referring to WebCGM 2.0)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>When asked, "what is the practical drop-dead for the change 
> > >>>>>s/20/2/?", the answer was "Last November".  So they (ASD) are 
> > >>>>>just about stretched to their limit.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Do you think we could get the shortnames revision approved by 
> > >>>>>Friday week (1/12)?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>[I'm available to confer this afternoon, if need be, but mostly
> > >>>>unavailable
> > >>>>>during the day Friday.]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Thanks,
> > >>>>>-Lofton.
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > >>>>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447