- From: DANET PIERRE <PDANET@hachette-livre.fr>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:49:37 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
OK, tnx, Will read this at Hachette and give you back our comments. P ________________________________________ De : Ivan Herman [ivan@w3.org] Date d'envoi : jeudi 1 octobre 2015 13:01 Ŕ : DANET PIERRE Cc : Bill McCoy; Leonard Rosenthol; W3C Digital Publishing IG Objet : Re: New commit of the Portable Web Publication draft, to be reviewed... On 01 Oct 2015, at 12:31 , DANET PIERRE <PDANET@hachette-livre.fr<mailto:PDANET@hachette-livre.fr>> wrote: Hi, Just getting in the discussion now, sorry for that, but reading this thread raised questions in my mind. The Publishing Industry and ecosystem has done, is doing, will do strong efforts to push accessible, interoperable open format on the markets, epub 3. Lobbying efforts, adoption efforts, technology efforts (Readium Foundation for example, EDRLAB,…),…. If PWP appears as a new besides format project with no guarantee of compliance with EPUB 3.X and following, i think it’s a pbm. But i did not read all the docs and emails on that, sorry, but can you explain for me your objective on that ? The discussion was really on how to express the relationship between PWP and EPUB. I think that http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#epub-relations describes the situation as we know it today… But this is just the first, rough text. Still waiting for comments… Ivan Many Tnx Pierre Danet Hachette Livre De : Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> Date : jeudi 1 octobre 2015 12:14 Ŕ : Bill Mccoy <bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org>>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> Cc : W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> Objet : Re: New commit of the Portable Web Publication draft, to be reviewed... Bill, Leonard, I have made the editing, ie, to move the relationships with EPUB into an appendix. The result is at the usual place http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/ WDYT? Ivan On 01 Oct 2015, at 05:14 , Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org>> wrote: Leonard, some comments inline. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Actually, Bill, the reasons why we are “working on this now” is that EPUB 3.x doesn’t address a number of the requirements that have been put together by this IG for a “Portable Web Publication” [1]. The online/offline situation is just one of them – perhaps the most important one, but certainly not the only one. Agreed. and it would be nice if (somewhere) other deficiencies in today's EPUB 3 (i.e. that keep it from being a full "Portable Web Publication" solution) were enumerated. I certainly am not suggesting that there are none (and I'm really not trying to go all "Nobody puts EPUB in a corner" on this!). So in my mind, the PWP document [2] should be using [1] as the basis for discussions. Any reference to EPUB 3 should be as an example of something that the community has been using to date that doesn’t meet their needs (and perhaps why). That to me sounds like an appendix. It is far too strong to say that "community has been using to date that doesn’t meet their needs" particularly when this IG represents not so much of that community and when said needs are in some cases speculative. And EPUB is not just "an example of something", this IG was created as part of collaborations between IDPF and W3C and I think it's critically important both that we not undermine EPUB 3.x adoption and that we don't give up on the potential for an evolutionary vector. After all, HTML didn't meet a number of needs for interactive and rich media content, but the chosen solution was not to start over from scratch ... to the contrary, it's arguable that a key principle that led to HTML5's relatively rapid proliferation was to maximize backwards compatibility (something that many purists were very unhappy with at the time). You might prefer this group to embark on a de nova effort on a brand new format, without making compatibility with EPUB an explicit consideration, and I can imagine there may be some others who may agree with you, for a variety of reasons, but that is not a consensus position., but I just don't think it's practical that we ... whatever technologies are chosen to deliver PWP is completely open for discussion and debate. That is true but that EPUB exists, is adopted, and that we should not needlessly reinvent any wheels are IMO not open for debate. The first two are facts and the last is both a general principle for standards development in W3C and elsewhere as well as again part of the partnership between IDPF and W3C that led to co-authorship of the original EPUB+WEB white paper as well as the current charter for this IG. We want to keep all our options open, including the very real possibility (some might say likelihood) that a future PWP format may not be compatible with today's EPUB 3.x, but that is not at all the same thing as ignoring what has already been done in EPUB 3, which has benefited from over a decade of collaboration among key stakeholders and experts in the publishing and accessibility communities. Even without my IDPF hat on, I believe that doing so would be a big mistake, particularly as so many publishing industry stakeholders are not yet part of this IG and since EPUB 3 is still evolving relatively rapidly. Let's not do an XForms here (unless we have to, which I think it's premature to agree on). And on that note, I find the current document draft offering too much proposed technical direction, which is VERY VERY premature at this time... On this I agree with you. As I said earlier, I think it would be best if this document described the ideal goal state rather than how we will get there from here. --Bill Leonard [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging [2] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/ From: Bill McCoy Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM To: Ivan Herman Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG Subject: Re: New commit of the Portable Web Publication draft, to be reviewed... Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:43 PM Hi Ivan, I would generally be OK to consolidate more detailed references to EPUB in one place, feasibly in an Appendix. However, I am not sure how a section titled "Why work on this now?" can reasonably exist in a vacuum from EPUB (as well as other things that exist now in the world but especially EPUB since it is the only open standard portable document format based on Web technologies, and is widely adopted). We want to ground our motivation in practicalities not theoretical concerns. And to me one of the key practical motivations to "work on this now" is precisely that today's EPUB does not fully address the online use cases. Whether or not the fruits of this effort ultimately gets called EPUB 4, in a very real sense that's the role it will necessarily end up playing, assuming we successfully avoid forking competing efforts which would only confuse the ecosystem to the advantage of proprietary solutions. So personally I do not see the upside in burying EPUB in fine print at the end (at least for those of us who want to see a unified open platform for digital publishing). But perhaps leaving in a briefer mention of EPUB in that motivational section would be sufficient, and then all the details about ways and means of potentially achieving the requirements, including as they touch on EPUB, could be consolidated to one section or Appendix at the end. --Bill On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: Bill, thanks. I fully understand your concerns. On the other hand, it is also true that it is "cleaner" if the technical descriptions, architecture, etc, could be as generic as possible. I was thinking in a somewhat different structure that may be the basis for a good consensus, I wonder whether this could work for you - references from, essentially, the current text to EPUB would be removed, including those parts that you referred to - we would add a completely different section (or appendix) on whose goal is to clarify the relationship with EPUB. That would include, with possible editing, the various remarks on EPUB, completed and/or replaced with the text you propose below. I believe this would make the structure cleaner, and would allow us to make a consistent and clear set of arguments on the relationships to EPUB. WDYT? Ivan PS. I agree with the removal of the EPUB+WEB reference. --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153<tel:%2B31%20641044153> http://www.ivan-herman.net<http://www.ivan-herman.net/> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:46, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org>> wrote: Hi, I haven't been on the calls, so apologies if I'm revisiting old ground, and also my comments are not substantive/technical. But, to help avoid fostering unnecessary FUD among current EPUB adopters and stakeholders, I would like to propose some minor word-smithing of one sentence in Section 4.2. In the interests of full transparency, I'm sending my suggestions to the group as a whole rather than just making edits in the source document. Feedback and discussion welcome, as always. The sentence I'm concerned about currently reads: Although all effort must be taken to keep as much backward compatibility with deployed formats (e.g., EPUB 3) as possible, the requirement(s) of Portable Web Publications will very likely mean a non-backward compatible transition from those. I have two issues with this: 1. I believe it would be more accurate to state outright that EPUB is not just one of many "deployed formats" but is the primary format for consideration for backwards compatibility in this effort. Proprietary formats like Mobipocket are not really under consideration (and at this point the vast majority of content flowing to Amazon's infrastructure from authors and publishers is in EPUB anyway). Non-web-based formats such as PDF, XPS, and DOCX aren't really in scope for specific backwards compatibility either. So unless someone would like to propose other adopted formats that we should specifically consider for backwards compatibility, it just seems unnecessary to be vague on this point. 2. I would also suggest a slight softening of the "non-backward compatible" part. I think it's important that it not be perceived that this document is the opening salvo of a determined "forking" effort particularly when two of its co-authors are respectively the CTO of IDPF and the co-chairs of the IDPF EPUB Working Group. IDPF understands that the results of work towards achieving the goals of Portable Web Publications may be incompatibilities with today and tomorrow's EPUB, but IMO it is premature to suggest so strongly that this will be the case, particularly as we don't yet know how far tomorrow's EPUB (e.g. EPUB 3.1) can evolve incrementally towards achieving Portable Web Publication vision. Also "very likely" is a judgment call that it seems premature to declare consensus on, particularly without any supporting specifics. As I see it, what we are fundamentally doing with this document is describing a desired end goal, not detailing how we are going to get there from where we sit today. So while it's wordier I would propose the following replacement: It would be highly desirable to deliver on the requirements on Portable Web Publications in an evolutionary manner that builds on, and is backwards compatible with, the existing EPUB format 3, since it is already widely deployed. However, to fully deliver on Portable Web Publications requirements may not be possible without a non-backward compatible transition. At this preliminary stage, this document emphasizes all requirements envisions for Portable Web Publications without addressing the natural tension between goals of preserving compatibility and fully achieving all these requirements in the most elegant manner. But neither this end-goal emphasis, nor the use of the new term "Portable Web Publication", should be taken as implying a recommendation to definitely create a "de nova" new format that would replace EPUB. Further investigation is required, and the ongoing evolutionary trajectory of EPUB must also be taken into account. Basically I want to preserve (at least at this early juncture) the notions that a) it might turn out to be possible to fully meet the "Portable Web Publications" goals in an evolutionary manner and/or that b) the community might decide that it's better to sacrifice or relax some of the goals in order to preserve backwards compatibility. By way of example, the ZIP+XML packaging could turn out to be fine for all needs of packaging on the Web, and allow preserving that aspect of EPUB compatibility. BTW I would also suggest removing the note about EPUB+WEB, at this point I think that's historical, and not of interest to the broader audience we expect for this document. In which case the clarification I suggest above could perhaps come earlier in the draft, perhaps as soon as where that note is. --Bill On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: Dear all, as agreed on the telco, I have made some changes. The first and most important is that the address/name of the repository has changed, due to the change of the term Document to Publication. Sorry about that. The draft is at: http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/ the github repo being https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp (it was pwd instead of pwp…). Hopefully, this is the last change in the URL. I have made the following changes, mainly on the terminology section: - Changed (Portable) Web Document to (Portable) Web Publication everywhere in the text and, in particular, in the terminology (glossary) section[1] - Added a definition for "Content", essentially taking it over from WCAG - Changed the term 'collated' to 'aggregated' for the definition of a Web Publication - Added a bullet item emphasizing the fact that a Web Publication has a URI denoting the whole set of resources - Added the font example that we used in our discussion to give an example for the 'fuzziness' of portable vs. non-portable publications - I have added a separate section on states[2], but switched to the protocol vs. file and dropped the online vs. offline. Have added the typical example table, but also added some notes on the other corner cases Section 4 still needs work on adopting the state terminology, but I wanted to get some feedback before proceeding on that one. Remember that the goal we have is to get to a version next Monday that would be acceptable as a first public working draft. A FPWD is not supposed to be complete or perfect so, at this point, what we have to decide is whether the document is "good enough". We can and should work on it further later, of course… All comments, (github) issues, pull request, etc, are welcome... Cheers Ivan [1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#pwp_definition [2] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#state_definition ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233<tel:%2B1%20206%20353%200233> -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233<tel:%2B1%20206%20353%200233> -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:51:22 UTC