Consider moving (Third Edition) to a subtitle

[palemieux]

Per tobie/specref#463, I suggest considering moving (Third Edition) to a subtitle

[skynavga]

I do not agree, as this would make it inconsistent with the titling of prior editions.

[palemieux]

@skynavga How do you address the issue raised at tobie/specref#463? I am happy with alternatives. The status quo is undesirable however.

[skynavga]

The fix is obvious: change IMSC to refer to specific versions, and not the generic spec URL. We went through TTML2 normative references not long ago to make sure we always referred to a specific document with a permanent URL. See w3c/ttml2#457.

As for changing the title of TTML1, I cannot accept a change there.

[nigelmegitt]

I agree, if we want to reference a specific version we should use that version's URL. On the flip side if we want a generic URL then there needs to be a usable name for the referenced spec independent of edition and version. That latter thing seems to be what this issue is asking to facilitate.

[palemieux]

n the flip side if we want a generic URL then there needs to be a usable name for the referenced spec independent of edition and version.

Yes, precisely. Editions are intended to be very minor revisions and so presumably there should be a root name that does not include the edition number.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed TTML1 3rd Ed - to subtitle or not to subtitle?, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: @palemieux to prepare a pull request moving the version into an h2

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Topic: TTML1 3rd Ed - to subtitle or not to subtitle?
<nigel> Pierre: We seem to have the right people on this call to discuss this.
<nigel> .. Nigel, you summarised this pretty well in one of your comments.
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/352
<nigel> Glenn: My understanding is that we want a generic title that does not specify edition, and is flexible?
<nigel> Pierre: Yes, I think NIgel summarised this - if anyone wants a generic undated version,
<nigel> .. the pointer is /TR/ttml1 which always points to the latest version, but associated with this
<nigel> .. ideally there should be an unversioned title that can be used to match the "latest" URL.
<nigel> .. The way this came up is it is weird to have a reference that says "TTML1 2nd Ed" but when
<nigel> .. you click on it you get 3rd Ed.
<nigel> Glenn: Yes, I don't have any problem doing that as long as we don't change the title in one
<nigel> .. of the specific editions. For example the specification could recommend a generic title
<nigel> .. for use by referencing specs. It could do that in the spec somewhere, in the Intro or SOTD,
<nigel> .. for example, it could have a note that says "for the purpose of generically referencing
<nigel> .. TTML1 without specifying date or edition use XYZ". That's one way to handle it and would
<nigel> .. meet my concern which is it does not change the title of the specific edition.
<nigel> Pierre: My thinking was less intrusive, to use metadata so that tools like specref can extract
<nigel> .. the name and know that "3rd Ed" is a version.
<nigel> Philippe: You have 2 ways - you can put all the info into the h1 or divide into h1 and h2.
<nigel> .. Respec can deal with it either way but specref only takes into account the h1 - it doesn't support subtitles.
<nigel> Glenn: You mean the text content of the h1 or some metadata associated with it?
<nigel> Philippe: The text content.
<nigel> Glenn: That's the problem, I don't want to change the content of h1.
<nigel> Philippe: Fine, it doesn't change the fact that we are still talking about TTML1. I'm not
<nigel> .. trying to recommend one or the other. It's a matter of taste. Some people do not like to
<nigel> .. use versions at all. They give the choice to make the version indication secondary, and
<nigel> .. we tell them that they can omit it or put it in the h2. It doesn't matter to us.
<nigel> .. You can still use the version URL.
<nigel> .. The latest version is calculated automatically.
<nigel> .. We only have one copy on the server, we don't modify it depending on how it is accessed.
<nigel> .. That's with or without a date in the URL.
<nigel> .. It's difficult to differentiate the case where the reader wanted a dated version or a general version, on the server side.
<nigel> Glenn: And the latest version changes over time?
<nigel> Philippe: Correct, those are calculated.
<nigel> Glenn: From the server's perspective it just takes whatever comes out of the filesystem.
<nigel> .. It doesn't sound like the metadata system would work unless you modify respec.
<nigel> Pierre: Or specref.
<nigel> Glenn: Yes, specref is what I mean.
<nigel> Pierre: The first step is to modify those.
<nigel> Glenn: How would you change the metadata in the document?
<nigel> Pierre: That's a w3c tooling choice, it should be the same across all specs.
<nigel> Philippe: I still don't understand - what is the purpose of the metadata, to give the edition?
<nigel> Glenn: What I'm hearing is a name meta element in the head with a generic title, and specref
<nigel> .. if it finds that uses it instead of the h1.
<nigel> Philippe: Duplicating the information in metadata is never a good thing.
<nigel> Glenn: In this case the content would be different because it would not include the version information.
<nigel> Philippe: If we push the version into the h2 and teach specref about the h2 would be the
<nigel> .. better option. It knows if you are linking to the generic latest or a specific edition. It can
<nigel> .. return markup differently depending on how you use it. So it can merge the h1 and the h2
<nigel> .. if applicable. That's better in the long run.
<nigel> Glenn: Right now h2 have the top level headings?
<nigel> Philippe: That's in the body, but in the head you have h1 with title and h2 with date etc.
<nigel> .. In between some folk are adding another h2 in between with a subtitle.
<nigel> Glenn: You can have an h1 inside head in HTML?
<nigel> Philippe: I didn't mean the html I meant the div class/id="head" - the one that contains the
<nigel> .. logo, the title, the copyright info, etc, those kind of stuff.
<nigel> Glenn: The top level div, let me see...
<nigel> ... there's a div class="head" I see.
<nigel> ... OK I see in TTML1 the title contains the 3rd Edition and the h2 which has the Editor's Draft ...
<nigel> Philippe: The proposal is to move the "3rd Edition" in to the h2 and teach specref about that h2.
<nigel> .. Visually you won't see anything different because the same text will be there but specref
<nigel> .. can pick the h2 or not depending on what we teach it.
<nigel> Glenn: Right now there's a "W3C Editor's Draft" in the h2.
<nigel> Philippe: Yes and we're proposing to add another one.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/
<nigel> Philippe: For example the pointer events spec does exactly that.
<nigel> .. It's called Pointer Events but if you go to the spec it says it's level 2. The intent is to
<nigel> .. supersede level 1 in the future.
<nigel> Glenn: I see. So it takes it out of the title, there's a new line there, basically.
<nigel> Philippe: Correct
<nigel> .. The effect that it has is that in specref if you put pointerevents2 you will see that it points
<nigel> .. to the working draft but the title is just Pointer Events because specref doesn't get the h2
<nigel> .. information from our systems.
<nigel> -> https://www.specref.org/?q=pointerevents2 Specref for Pointer Events 2
<nigel> Nigel: I see, the title is just from the h1 - because specref doesn't know about the h2 yet.
<nigel> Philippe: Correct.
<nigel> Glenn: There's a meta issue about what should the specific reference be from IMSC.
<nigel> Nigel: That's a drift off this topic - it does need to be covered but that's different.
<nigel> Glenn: If you put a date into specref then it points you to a specific dated version of the doc.
<nigel> Pierre: That's the point, specref with a version specific URL will include the version, but
<nigel> .. a generic latest link would just have the title without the version.
<nigel> Philippe: If you're talking about latest version, you need to make sure the right title is returned.
<nigel> .. That could be in our backend.
<nigel> Glenn: It sounds like you need changes to specref and we need to change the title to put the edition into an h2?
<nigel> Philippe: Right, if you want to do that, then we do need to make changes to specref too.
<nigel> Glenn: Is your proposal to put the version info into the h2 Pierre?
<nigel> Pierre: Yes that's what I would do if that's the direction we're going in.
<nigel> Glenn: Even though that breaks our convention today?
<nigel> Pierre: Yes - do you know of anyone who uses the title with version in the h1 today?
<nigel> Glenn: Impossible to know.
<nigel> Pierre: It seems like W3C is going in that direction generally so I would follow it.
<nigel> .. We're just discussing modifying the TTML1 h1 to allow the automatic bibliographic references to work.
<nigel> .. It would be to take "3rd Edition" out of the h1 and put it in the h2.
<nigel> Glenn: My preference would be to modify Specref in such a way that we don't have to change
<nigel> .. the title to a different format.
<nigel> Philippe: No, that's not going to happen and I can't propagate that to other groups.
<nigel> Pierre: We could introduce extra metadata duplicating the information but that's undesirable.
<nigel> Philippe: We already have people using respec to create these h2s.
<nigel> Glenn: I was suggesting that specref can look for metadata if it is there and if absent then
<nigel> .. use the h2.
<nigel> Philippe: That would be a special case and I'm not going to allow special cases, for sure, sorry.
<nigel> .. It's not worth our development time unless I can propagate the change.
<nigel> Glenn: The problem I see is it breaks continuity with the past titling convention, that's all.
<nigel> .. It would also require a change in TTML2. It's just a formatting, stylistic change. We could
<nigel> .. make that change. Give me a few days to convince myself it's okay.
<nigel> Nigel: I think we should make an assumptive decision to change to version in h2 and then
<nigel> .. you can tell us if you find any problem Glenn.
<nigel> Pierre: I can just create a pull request for us to review, that's more concrete.
<nigel> Nigel: Yes
<nigel> Glenn: Then we can look at it.
<nigel> Nigel: Pierre, I think you can go ahead and do that please.
<nigel> SUMMARY: @palemieux to prepare a pull request moving the version into an h2

[nigelmegitt]

I've reassigned the pull request to @plehegar pending further information about the need and urgency of making this change.