convert to working draft as of Nov. 6

[sunghee-hwang]

---

Preview | Diff

[sunghee-hwang]

@tdaede @cconcolato
As this PR has been merged, the link in IAMF PR indicates the working group draft.
https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/AOMedia-Advances-the-Audio-Innovation-Era/

The link (Immersive Audio Model and Formats (IAMF)) in IAMF PR needs to be updated to correctly indicate the final specification of IAMF v1.
It may be related to #772.

[felicialim]

@tdaede @cconcolato As this PR has been merged, the link in IAMF PR indicates the working group draft. https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/AOMedia-Advances-the-Audio-Innovation-Era/

The link (Immersive Audio Model and Formats (IAMF)) in IAMF PR needs to be updated to correctly indicate the final specification of IAMF v1. It may be related to #772.

#777 and #778 should add

1. A v1 html at https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/v1.0.0.html
2. A "Previous Versions" field at the top of the doc that points to the v1.0.0 html

Would that work?

[sunghee-hwang]

If we follow Cyril's suggestion (from the mail at the end of Oct.), they should look like this.

This version:
https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/index.html
Previously approved version:
https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/v1.0.0.html
Latest approved version:
https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/latest-approved.html
Latest draft version:
https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/latest-draft.html

However, I am not sure whether they are coded in index.bs file or not.
In case of av1-isobmff, they are not coded in index.bs file but index.html from aomediacodec.github.io/av1-isobmff shows them.

Anyway, we can refer to https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-isobmff/tree/gh-pages and I think that @tdaede or @cconcolato covers the rest.

[felicialim]

If we follow Cyril's suggestion (from the mail at the end of Oct.), they should look like this.
Sorry I missed this!

This version: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/index.html Previously approved version: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/v1.0.0.html Latest approved version: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/latest-approved.html Latest draft version: https://aomediacodec.github.io/iamf/latest-draft.html

However, I am not sure whether they are coded in index.bs file or not. In case of av1-isobmff, they are not coded in index.bs file but index.html from aomediacodec.github.io/av1-isobmff shows them.

These look to have been manually added (AOMediaCodec/av1-isobmff@ca087bd). I've just done the same to v1.0.0.html to include "Latest draft version".

Since "Previous Versions" in index.bs can hold a list of multiple versions: an alternative is we add all approved versions there, so that it is auto-generated in future index.html files, and replaces "Previously/Latest approved version". If we prefer the av1-isobmff way, I can also make those manual changes.

[sunghee-hwang]

Then I prefer the alternative from now on which means that we need to update the header manually in index.bs.
As we have already released v1, v1.0.0.html in gh-pages is manually updated as well.
Also, I prefer gh-pages having "latest-approved.html" and "lastest-draft.html" to keep aligned with av1-isobmff.

[felicialim]

There is no latest-draft.html in the av1-isobmff main branch since there is no index.html to point to. This might be why v1.0.0.html in the main branch is different from the gh-pages branch. I prefer to keep both copies the same for consistency, if you agree, do you have a suggestion to work around this?

[sunghee-hwang]

I agree that we need to keep both copies the same at least.

There are three places to store html files, main, gh-pages, and tags.
Even though we may not keep the same v1.0.0.html files, we need a structure to have the copies the same for future versions.
So, I would not mind if we could have such a structure.

I think that we may not need to care about the latest-draft.html in the main branch because the link (xxx/githu.io/iamf/xxx) seems relevant not to the main branch but to gh-pages.

What do you think?