From carson@siggraph.org Tue Aug 12 20:15:47 1997 Received: from siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu [128.146.18.100]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA00267 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:15:45 +0200 Received: from study.huntleigh.com (carson@siggraph.org) by siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (8.8.5/941010.52) with SMTP id OAA26607; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970812121615.009e45dc@siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: carson@siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:19:45 -0600 To: SC24@dkuug.dk From: Steve Carson Subject: Description of changes Cc: chris@w3.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This forwarded mail contains a description of the changes in Draft 4 of the Cooperative Agreement from the Kista Version. >Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:20:12 +0200 (MET) >From: Chris Lilley >To: Steve Carson , Andre.Ducrot@inria.fr >Subject: (Fwd) Re: Cooperative Agreement > > >--- Forwarded mail from Chris Lilley > >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:47:09 +0200 (MET) >From: Chris Lilley >To: Steve Carson , josiane.roberts@inria.fr,= jfa@w3.org >Subject: Re: Cooperative Agreement >Cc: frah@inf.rl.ac.uk, dad@inf.rl.ac.uk, chris@w3.org, > 100434.3031@compuserve.com > >On Jul 21, 6:51pm, Steve Carson wrote: > >> I am contacting you again as Chair of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24. SC 24 is ready= to >> forward a New Work Item Proposal to JTC 1 for approval to initiate the= PNG >> project. Before we do this we need at least a statement of intent from= W3C >> that you will work with us to transpose PNG into an ISO standard and will >> negotiate and approve a Cooperative Agreement that governs the work, to= be >> based on the draft we gave you in June. > >The issue has now been dicussed by both the Advisory Council of W3C >(representatives from all the member companies) and by W3C management. >I believe that we now have agreement in principle to proceed, and >commitment from W3C management to negotiate and approve a Cooperative >Agreement based on the June draft. > >> I understand from Chris Lilley that approval of this draft agreement is= in >> the works, but recent attempts to contact Chris to determine the current >> status have failed, I assume because he is out of the office. > >A mixture of being out, busy and also I was ill recently; my apologies for >keeping you waiting. The current status is that the Cooperative Agreement >has been discussed in detail by W3C management and myself; some changes >were proposed and these are incorporated into the attached version. >The decision was to proceed with the proposed cooperation, which was seen >as being valuable. > >Some changes were minor clarifications: ISO will not be changing the W3C >Recommendations, as the text seemed to indicate - rather it will be >changing it's CD and DIS texts relative to the base W3C Recommendations >(I believe that was the intent of the wording but the old wording could >be and was misinterpreted). > >The part about basing ISO work on W3C Recommendations was moved to make >it a little more prominent. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 were swapped over to >correspond to the chronological order (changes, then finishing up rather >than finishing up followed by changes). The list in the (old)5.5 (new)5.4 >was altered from three list items to two list items and a comment, since >it could have been be mis-interpreted . > >Text about W3C process has had some detail added, a change which mainly >makes clearer to our membership what will happen. > >There was agreement about the overall two-part working process; the >technical part happens in W3C with ISO participation, and the >final editorial part happens in ISO with W3C participation. The process >ends with a ratifying vote. > >The June draft of the Cooperative Agreement gave some protection to ISO >in the event (considered unlikely) that there were severe technical >flaws in a W3C Recommendation which would render it unimplementable or >otherwise significantly flawed. The position of W3C management is that >there should be a similar protection for W3C in the event (considered >unlikely) that there were severe technical flaws, or differences of >interpretation introduced by ISO editorial process, which could lead to >inconsistent implementation. In accordance with the June draft, "The >ISO/IEC DIS text shall be published by the W3C for review within the >Consortium according to Consortium practices". (The new draft goes into >a little W3C-specific detail about how that review should be conducted). > >The addition to the finishing up process was made at the behest of Tim >Berners-Lee and appears to meet the requirement of W3C management that >W3C have some protection against the ISO document turning out to compromise >rather than enhance the interoperability of the Web. The proposal is that, >should either the DIS ballot or the W3C AC ballot fail, the document >should not be promoted to ISO/IEC IS status. > >Since the same AC has already voted in favour of the original technical >content (when it promoted the document from Proposed Recommendation to >Recommendation) the only circumstance in which it would vote no would >be if substantial changes had been introduced by the ISO process which >were felt to hinder interoperability. This is of course unlikely, since >such changes should have been caught and dealt with by the document >editors; similarly it is unlikely that technical changes would be required >since the document authors, editors and the implementors should have caught >them. Clearly, however, both parties require some protection for the >exceptional circumstance. > >> If I can just >> get e-mail from a W3C officer stating your intent as described above, we >> can go ahead and start the project. > >I have e-mail from Jean-Fran=E7ois Abramatic, Chairman of the W3C >which he has authorised me to forward to you stating that intent, based >on the new draft of the Cooperative Agreement. He will follow up with >official notification on paper, if required. We hope that the process >will take less than "several months" in practice. > >--- Forwarded mail from Jean-Francois Abramatic >Letter of Intent > >This letter of intent confirms that the signers intend to negotiate >a Cooperative Agreement based on the attached initial draft dated >July 21, 1997. This agreement will cover cooperation between the World >Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and ISO/IEC JTC1 to develop an ISO standard: >Portable Networked Graphics (PNG) based on the W3C publically available >PNG Recommendation. > >Once this letter is signed by all parties, the Chair of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 >will initiate processing of the proposed Cooperative agreement through >the approval steps required by ISO and the IEC and the Chairman of W3C >will initiate processing of the proposed Cooperative agreement through >the approval steps required by W3C. > >This process is expected to take several months, and both W3C and SC24 >agree to make a good faith effort to mutually resolve any concerns with >the draft text. > >For ISO and IEC > >George S. Carson, Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24, Computer Graphics and Image >Processing > >For W3C > >Jean-Francois Abramatic, Chairman > >---End of forwarded mail from Jean-Francois Abramatic > >-- >Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] >Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium >http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C >chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 >+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France > > >---End of forwarded mail from Chris Lilley > >--=20 >Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] >Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium >http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C >chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 >+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France > > --------------------------------------------------------- Steve Carson phone: +1-505-521-7399 GSC Associates Inc. fax: +1-505-521-9321 5272 Redman Road e-mail: carson@siggraph.org Las Cruces, NM 88011 USA ---------------------------------------------------------