RE: WebCGM shortnames and timing.

I am at a loss what to do now...

At 06:56 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>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

"the choice" ... ummm ... Given that the Director approved webcgm2, not 
webcgm20, what do we do now?

The clock is ticking, and we still do not have an *approved* solution that 
we can tell to the users and constituents.

-Lofton.


> >
> > 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

Received on Saturday, 6 January 2007 04:52:18 UTC