Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

This should be LEVEL 2 not VERSION 2 #81

Closed
nadalin opened this issue Feb 23, 2022 · 11 comments
Closed

This should be LEVEL 2 not VERSION 2 #81

nadalin opened this issue Feb 23, 2022 · 11 comments

Comments

@nadalin
Copy link

nadalin commented Feb 23, 2022

W3C updates go by LEVEL, if this is truly an update to the previous VC specification this should be LEVEL 2 and called out in the charter.
@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Feb 24, 2022

There is no such hard rule at W3C, @nadalin (maybe there should be, but that is another discussion). Working groups have the freedom to use other terminology like "version". There are several examples; see, for example, the EPUB WG Charter (where I am also active) which uses the term "version" all over the place.

@OR13
Copy link
Contributor

OR13 commented Mar 2, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Suggest we close the issue in absence of a citation.

Breaking changes implies a version change to me.

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Contributor

peacekeeper commented Mar 2, 2022 •
edited
Loading

I think "level 2" sounds like it's a superset or an additional layer on top of "level 1", which would be confusing. So "version" seems like a better term.

@nadalin
Copy link
Author

nadalin commented Mar 3, 2022 via email

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Mar 3, 2022

This brings up the question of version 2 supercedes Verizon 1 or are both still viable. Level seems a better term, that could be why W3C recommends that term.

W3C does not "recommend" that term. WG-s choose (or not) that term or use a different one. It is the prerogative of a WG.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Mar 3, 2022

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2022-03-02

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

5.2. This should be LEVEL 2 not VERSION 2 (issue vc-wg-charter#81)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#81.

Brent Zundel: next issue #81.
… rather than v2, perhaps we should call it level 2 to comply with other W3C recommendations.

Manu Sporny: there's no rule in here that says use level 2 instead of version 2. It is confusing.

Joe Andrieu: -1 on this issue.

Joe Andrieu: Level 2 to me, implied semantics, seems to me that Level 1 is still valid. It doesn't convey we're "updating that first version to newer version, where not all of the first thing might be valid anymore.".

Juan Caballero: "An earlier version of EPUB (EPUB 3.0.1) was published as an ISO standard ISO/IEC TS 30135:2014 (parts 1-7). This Working Group and ISO may consider updating that ISO specification once the new Recommendations are published..."
Additionally, there are currently activities within ISO/IEC JTC 001/SC34 on specifications that rely on earlier versions
of EPUB (e.g., EPUB Preservation, EPUB Accessibility). A liaison has to be maintained on, possibly, updating those ISO specifications to the latest versions of EPUB 3, specified by this Working Group."

Juan Caballero: (^from Iván's example).

@nadalin
Copy link
Author

nadalin commented Mar 3, 2022 via email

@Sakurann
Copy link
Contributor

We added a following text to the charter to clarify that version 2 supersedes version 1:

It is explicitly not a requirement that the new specifications be fully compatible with related past specifications.

Would this be acceptable?

@nadalin
Copy link
Author

nadalin commented Mar 16, 2022

LGTM

@brentzundel
Copy link
Member

closing, based on discussion in the group meeting

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Mar 17, 2022

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2022-03-16

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

4.1. This should be LEVEL 2 not VERSION 2 (issue vc-wg-charter#81)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#81.

Kristina Yasuda: I think it turned out that Tony's concern was that version 2 allows breaking changes to version 1. That it supersedes version 1 and we already have that in the charter and he's ok with that language.
… So we can close that issue.

Manu Sporny: That does not mean that our intent is to completely break VCs. There should be an expectation that any backwards compatible or breaking change will undo significant scrutiny.

Michael Prorock: +1 manu - avoiding breaking changes if possible.

Kristina Yasuda: I think the clarification here is that we will tell people to look at version 2 once published.

Manu Sporny: Correct.

Kristina Yasuda: Yes, and we aren't actively trying to break version 1 if we can avoid it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@peacekeeper @iherman @nadalin @OR13 @brentzundel @Sakurann