From "puk@puk"@igraphics.com Tue Aug 12 22:33:34 1997 Received: from mail11.digital.com (mail11.digital.com [192.208.46.10]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01846 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:33:32 +0200 Received: from ra.rbc.dec.com (ra.rbc.dec.com [16.118.160.3]) by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) with ESMTP id QAA09764; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from losalamos (losalamos.rbc.dec.com [16.118.160.157]) by ra.rbc.dec.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA28623; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708122016.NAA28623@ra.rbc.dec.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:16:49 -0700 From: "Richard F. Puk" <"puk@puk"@igraphics.com> Reply-To: puk@rbc.dec.com Organization: Intelligraphics Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I) [AXP] MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Carson CC: SC24@dkuug.dk, chris@w3.org Subject: Re: (SC24.329) Description of changes References: <199708121815.UAA00293@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve -- Philosophically, I have no problems with any of the changes. My only concern is the need to somehow find a way to abort standardization if the DIS ballot succeeds and the W3C equivalent ballot fails. -- Dick Steve Carson wrote: > = > 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 re= ady to > >> forward a New Work Item Proposal to JTC 1 for approval to initiate t= he PNG > >> project. Before we do this we need at least a statement of intent fr= om 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 cur= rent > >> 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 Agreem= ent > >has been discussed in detail by W3C management and myself; some change= s > >were proposed and these are incorporated into the attached version. > >The decision was to proceed with the proposed cooperation, which was s= een > >as being valuable. > > > >Some changes were minor clarifications: ISO will not be changing the W= 3C > >Recommendations, as the text seemed to indicate - rather it will be > >changing it's CD and DIS texts relative to the base W3C Recommendation= s > >(I believe that was the intent of the wording but the old wording coul= d > >be and was misinterpreted). > > > >The part about basing ISO work on W3C Recommendations was moved to mak= e > >it a little more prominent. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 were swapped over to > >correspond to the chronological order (changes, then finishing up rath= er > >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, sin= ce > >it could have been be mis-interpreted . > > > >Text about W3C process has had some detail added, a change which mainl= y > >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 proces= s > >ends with a ratifying vote. > > > >The June draft of the Cooperative Agreement gave some protection to IS= O > >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 t= o > >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 int= o > >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 compr= omise > >rather than enhance the interoperability of the Web. The proposal is t= hat, > >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 technica= l > >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, sinc= e > >such changes should have been caught and dealt with by the document > >editors; similarly it is unlikely that technical changes would be requ= ired > >since the document authors, editors and the implementors should have c= aught > >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, base= d > >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 availabl= e > >PNG Recommendation. > > > >Once this letter is signed by all parties, the Chair of ISO/IEC JTC1/S= C24 > >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 wit= h > >the draft text. > > > >For ISO and IEC > > > >George S. Carson, Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24, Computer Graphics and Imag= e > >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 > > > >-- > >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 > --------------------------------------------------------- -- = /----------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Richard F. Puk Tel: +1-760-753-9027 | | Intelligraphics Incorporated Fax: +1-760-753-9027 | | 7644 Cortina Court E-Mail: puk@igraphics.com | | Carlsbad, California 92009-8206 | | USA | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/