From: Chris L. <ch...@w3...> - 2011-09-28 16:21:50
|
Hello, This was just brought to my attention. Seems like a clear errata item; the ISO page is clear that the correct date is 2004. While this might seem like an 'obvious' correction that people could do in their head,it can cause confusion as some people might think these are two different versions of the spec. >> The W3C PNG spec [1] has a sightly wrong reference to the corresponding ISO/IEC spec. >> The W3C spec "Status of this document" section says: >>> This document is the 14 October 2003 W3C Recommendation of the PNG >>> specification, second edition. It is also International Standard, >>> ISO/IEC 15948:2003. The two documents have exactly identical >>> content except for cover page and boilerplate differences as >>> appropriate to the two organisations. >> The only ISO/IEC PNG spec [2] is listed as "ISO/IEC 15948:2004". >> The difference is 2003 vs. 2004 >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG >> [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=29581 -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups |
From: <gl...@co...> - 2011-09-28 17:29:57
|
----- Chris Lilley <ch...@w3...> wrote: > Hello, > > This was just brought to my attention. Seems like a clear errata item; > the ISO page is clear that the correct date is 2004. Not sure how we were supposed to know that in 2003. It would be an "update" not an "erratum". In fact my printed copy of the "second edition" is dated 20 May 2003 and refers to ISO/IEC 15948:2002(E). Similarly, any copies of the Second Edition that I can find at W3C and elsewhere are 2003. I'm not paying 180,00 Swiss Francs to find out if the only difference between the real spec and these is the year. Glenn > > While this might seem like an 'obvious' correction that people could > do in their head,it can cause confusion as some people might think > these are two different versions of the spec. > > >> The W3C PNG spec [1] has a sightly wrong reference to the corresponding ISO/IEC spec. > > >> The W3C spec "Status of this document" section says: > >>> This document is the 14 October 2003 W3C Recommendation of the PNG > >>> specification, second edition. It is also International Standard, > >>> ISO/IEC 15948:2003. The two documents have exactly identical > >>> content except for cover page and boilerplate differences as > >>> appropriate to the two organisations. > > >> The only ISO/IEC PNG spec [2] is listed as "ISO/IEC 15948:2004". > >> The difference is 2003 vs. 2004 > > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG > >> [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=29581 > > > -- > Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain > W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead > Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG > Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a > definitive record of customers, application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > png-mng-misc mailing list > png...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc |
From: Chris L. <ch...@w3...> - 2011-09-28 17:35:53
|
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 7:29:51 PM, glennrp wrote: gcn> ----- Chris Lilley <ch...@w3...> wrote: >> Hello, >> This was just brought to my attention. Seems like a clear errata item; >> the ISO page is clear that the correct date is 2004. gcn> Not sure how we were supposed to know that in 2003. gcn> It would be an "update" not an "erratum". I agree we could not have known that at the time of publication. gcn> I'm not paying 180,00 gcn> Swiss Francs to find out if the only difference between gcn> the real spec and these is the year. Of course :) but following the link at ISO is free, and confirms that the actual publication date was 2004. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=29581 >> While this might seem like an 'obvious' correction that people could >> do in their head,it can cause confusion as some people might think >> these are two different versions of the spec. >> >> The W3C PNG spec [1] has a sightly wrong reference to the corresponding ISO/IEC spec. >> >> The W3C spec "Status of this document" section says: >> >>> This document is the 14 October 2003 W3C Recommendation of the PNG >> >>> specification, second edition. It is also International Standard, >> >>> ISO/IEC 15948:2003. The two documents have exactly identical >> >>> content except for cover page and boilerplate differences as >> >>> appropriate to the two organisations. >> >> The only ISO/IEC PNG spec [2] is listed as "ISO/IEC 15948:2004". >> >> The difference is 2003 vs. 2004 >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG >> >> [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=29581 >> -- >> Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain >> W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead >> Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG >> Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a >> definitive record of customers, application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 >> _______________________________________________ >> png-mng-misc mailing list >> png...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups |
From: John B. <joh...@gm...> - 2011-09-29 09:42:19
|
If some company can post an electronic version of the real ISO spec that can be: 1) Viewed without cost. 2) Mirrored Then I think everyone would support updating the links to point to that or to mrror it as appropriate. However the alternative of pointing PNG newbies to the ISO web site is counterproductive and I, for one, will continue too implement against the 20031110 draft because I don't have a copy of the final version and can't justify spending $180 for one. Given this situation it seems much more productive overall to ignore the ISO version and use the 20031110 version; if necessary someone who cares can do a byte-by-byte comparison on two versions to verify the original observation that they are identical. John Bowler jb...@ac... |
From: Chris L. <ch...@w3...> - 2011-09-29 14:09:45
|
On Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:42:09 AM, John wrote: JB> If some company can post an electronic version of the real ISO spec that can be: JB> JB> 1) Viewed without cost. JB> 2) Mirrored JB> JB> Then I think everyone would support updating the links to point JB> to that or to mrror it as appropriate. But that isn't the proposal. JB> However the alternative of pointing PNG newbies to the ISO web JB> site is counterproductive and I, for one, will continue too JB> implement against the 20031110 draft because I don't have a copy JB> of the final version and can't justify spending $180 for one. The point is that the 20031110 is identical to the ISO one; we just need to correctly identify the ISO spec. There is no 2003 ISO spec; they didn't get it published until 2004. As you know, W3C produces freely available and royalty-free specifications. The aim of this erratum isn't to shunt peopleoff to ISO; its to let them know that the W3C one and the ISO one are identical (and thus, that they don't need to fork out umpteen Swiss Francs for the ISO version). -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups |
From: Glenn Randers-P. <gl...@gm...> - 2011-09-29 15:52:08
|
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Chris Lilley <ch...@w3...> wrote: > On Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:42:09 AM, John wrote: > > JB> If some company can post an electronic version of the real ISO spec that can be: > JB> > JB> 1) Viewed without cost. > JB> 2) Mirrored > JB> > JB> Then I think everyone would support updating the links to point > JB> to that or to mrror it as appropriate. > > But that isn't the proposal. The proposal, as I understand it, is to update the document http://www.w3.org/2003/11/REC-PNG-20031110-errata by adding ================cut======================= Typographical error in "Status of this document" Category: 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance Date: 2011 September 29 Reported by: Chris Lilley Status: Proposed Description The second paragraph of the "Status of this document" section says: This document ... is also International Standard, ISO/IEC 15948:2003.... The ISO document was not published until 2004, and the number of the ISO document is ISO/IEC 15948:2004. Change In section "Status of this document", second paragraph change 15948-2003 to 15948-2004 ===============cut========================= I don't object to that. Glenn |
From: Chris L. <ch...@w3...> - 2011-09-29 20:24:27
|
On Thursday, September 29, 2011, 5:51:58 PM, Glenn wrote: GRP> The proposal, as I understand it, is to update the document GRP> http://www.w3.org/2003/11/REC-PNG-20031110-errata yes GRP> change GRP> 15948-2003 GRP> to GRP> 15948-2004 exactly. (And also in the title as mentioned later in the thread). -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups |
From: John B. <joh...@gm...> - 2011-09-29 18:35:28
|
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson <gl...@gm...>wrote: > The proposal, as I understand it, is to update the document > http://www.w3.org/2003/11/REC-PNG-20031110-errata > ... > Change > > In section "Status of this document", second paragraph > > change > > 15948-2003 > > to > > 15948-2004 > Ok, I misunderstood both Chris's original proposal (*just* to change that instanced of the string "ISO/IEC 15948:2003") and your reference to the erratum document (I didn't know it was there!) I had not realized that the document was not an ISO document. After all the title is: "Information technology — Computer graphics and image processing — Portable Network Graphics (PNG): Functional specification. ISO/IEC 15948:2003 (E)" Perhaps that instance of the string should simply be removed? After all; it has no meaning (there is no such thing) and it is misleading (it suggests that it is an ISO document.) John Bowler jb...@ac... > |
From: Glenn Randers-P. <gl...@gm...> - 2011-09-29 19:20:38
|
Oh, right, the instance in the title needs to be changed as well. I don't suggest removing it. Glenn On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM, John Bowler <joh...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson <gl...@gm...> > wrote: >> >> The proposal, as I understand it, is to update the document >> http://www.w3.org/2003/11/REC-PNG-20031110-errata > > ... >> >> Change >> >> In section "Status of this document", second paragraph >> >> change >> >> 15948-2003 >> >> to >> >> 15948-2004 > > > Ok, I misunderstood both Chris's original proposal (*just* to change that > instanced of the string "ISO/IEC 15948:2003") and your reference to the > erratum document (I didn't know it was there!) > > I had not realized that the document was not an ISO document. After all the > title is: > > "Information technology — Computer graphics and image processing — Portable > Network Graphics (PNG): Functional specification. ISO/IEC 15948:2003 (E)" > > Perhaps that instance of the string should simply be removed? After all; it > has no meaning (there is no such thing) and it is misleading (it suggests > that it is an ISO document.) > > John Bowler jb...@ac... >> >> |