Call for Consensus: publish First Public Working Draft

[ProgramMax]

This GitHub issue is to establish consensus on publishing a First Public Working Draft. W3C Working Group participants should reply with affirmation, dissent, or may abstain.

Should we publish a First Public Working Draft?

Major changes in FPWD addressed

All of our core goals have been obtained. These are:

• the new cICP chunk defined
• the new APNG chunks defined
• the iCCP chunk versioning issues addressed

In addition, other important changes have been resolved such as including XMP and EXIF in the core spec.
I believe all technical wording is now stable, as required to publish a First Public Working Draft.
There are still minor, non-technical changes which may be made after FPWD such as typographical changes or fixing validator errors and warnings.

Process

Consensus is a core value to the W3C. I have assigned this issue to all PNG WG participants who have their GitHub profile listed. I was unable to include Simon Thompson. I will send them an email with a link to this issue and direct them to respond to the public mailing list if they choose.

A WG participant may register a Formal Objection if they would like Director consideration.

WG participants may respond with a simple yes/no or similar. They may also elaborate. If dissenting, elaboration is encouraged in order to identify issues and find solutions. The W3C process on managing dissent states that we will try to address concerns as much as is reasonable and should move on once that is done.

Call to action

Working group participants should reply with their stance on publishing a First Public Working Draft.

[lrosenthol]

Yes

I support moving to FPWD. As noted, we still have some editorial work to do, but I believe that all of the technical items we had identified for this release are done.

[svgeesus]

Yes

[digitaltvguy]

Hi All, I will submit a few changes in nomenclature and description shortly. Best, Chris From: Chris Blume ***@***.***> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:38 PM To: w3c/PNG-spec ***@***.***> Cc: Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) ***@***.***>, Assign ***@***.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [w3c/PNG-spec] Call for Consensus: publish First Public Working Draft (Issue #219) Assigned #219<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/219__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!oawgKy_-vYjVHCRbyvJk-rhTxcaGA59EvKmcHAOSjaKNsVytt2srLoy8T1R_9kPDqutIsDE4ZoviTJn4yaa6Ibx03w$> to @digitaltvguy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/digitaltvguy__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!oawgKy_-vYjVHCRbyvJk-rhTxcaGA59EvKmcHAOSjaKNsVytt2srLoy8T1R_9kPDqutIsDE4ZoviTJn4yaa2gh3s-A$>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/219*event-7536900553__;Iw!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!oawgKy_-vYjVHCRbyvJk-rhTxcaGA59EvKmcHAOSjaKNsVytt2srLoy8T1R_9kPDqutIsDE4ZoviTJn4yaZaXeWeRA$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANIO6AZYWYRHTCK5N3ATGLWB36ABANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ6Z2FXI__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!oawgKy_-vYjVHCRbyvJk-rhTxcaGA59EvKmcHAOSjaKNsVytt2srLoy8T1R_9kPDqutIsDE4ZoviTJn4yaZlFzZxVw$>. You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[digitaltvguy]

Yes, I approve with subtle changes to nomenclature just submitted for review.

• Changed to "CICP image format signaling metadata"
• Changed generic descriptions of "colour space" to Colour Space, Transfer Function and Matrix Coefficients. (more informative of function)
• Added "Wide Colour Gamut" to description of CICP signaling capabilities.

[ProgramMax]

@digitaltvguy I approved and merged your suggestions. Thank you for doing that.

[chrisn]

I support publication as FPWD. Thank you for all the work you've done!

BTW, Simon Thompson is @simontWork

[ProgramMax]

Thank you, Chris Needham. For some reason, I am unable to add them to the assignees list. I'll look into it.

[chrisn]

It may be because he hasn't associated his GitHub account with his W3C account.

[simontWork]

Agreed.

Would it be possible to expand on narrow-range and full-range? It's a bit of a minefield of nomenclature clashes. EBU have tried to explain why full-range changes based on context: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r103.pdf

[digitaltvguy]

Agreed.

Would it be possible to expand on narrow-range and full-range? It's a bit of a minefield of nomenclature clashes. EBU have tried to explain why full-range changes based on context: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r103.pdf

Hi Simon,

I added some detail and created a pull request. I also created a reference and link to EBU R 103

-Chris

[ProgramMax]

Yes.

@palemieux, you are not required to vote. But if you want to, you are the final voice to be heard.

[palemieux]

@ProgramMax I suggest that the three remaining broken definitions (truecolour, zlib and CRC ) be fixed before FPWD. We should be able to do so before Monday me thinks.

[svgeesus]

I suggest that the three remaining broken definitions (truecolour, zlib and CRC ) be fixed before FPWD.

I see that truecolour, zlib and CRC all resolve correctly now.

[palemieux]

WG participants may respond with a simple yes/no or similar.

Yes.

[ProgramMax]

Thank you, everyone. We have unanimous consensus. I'm marking this issue as closed.

[svgeesus]

How it started:

How it's going: