- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:52:48 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, www-smil@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1108147968.11236.518.camel@seabright>
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:02 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > >There shouldn't be one. SMIL 2.0 2E is the end of the line for 2.0. > >SMIL 2.1 takes over from here. That was what the SYMM WG committed to. > > The Process document expects the Working Group to publish a Third > Edition should there be errors in the document (and there are.) The Process Document doesn't expect anything. The Process Document explains how a WG can carry out its wishes. If there is no group who wants to publish a document, it doesn't get published. > SMIL 2.1 cannot "take over" as it normatively depends on SMIL 2.0. I don't agree. > >"Latest version" is an ambiguous phrase when there are multiple versions > >of a technology at various maturity levels all co-existing. We are > >working to disambiguate the phrase. > > The "Latest version" link in W3C Technical Reports was not ambiguous, > it meant the latest version of the document. We have two Recommendations, for example: MathML 1.0 and MathML 2.0. Both include a "Latest version" link. Does that mean: * Latest version of any MathML? * Latest version of MathML major revision 2.0? * Latest version of MathML major revision 2 any minor revision? * Latest version of MathML major revision 2 that is a Recommendation even if there are newer minor revisions? We survived quite well in a world with only version 1 of each document. This issue is more acute now that we have more and more version 2 documents. > This meaning should be > restored and facilities such as "Latest SMIL 2 version" and "Latest > SMIL Recommendation" should be strikken as those are moving targets > and, as you point out, referring to a moving target is almost always > problematic and should thus not be encouraged. I agree with that. > Referring to the latest > version of a document such as SMIL 2.0 is not problematic as it is not > a moving target, such references are in fact very valuable as I've > pointed out. SMIL 2.0 is not a moving target, but SMIL 2 is. This is the WG's own stance. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 18:53:31 UTC