Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

Actually the IG agreed to it in the development of the charter.  Nothing to do with the BG, AFAIK.

AFAIK, EPUB 4 will be the only application of PWP coming from the W3C.  But WP isn’t even a “format” (at least in my view of it) and is more about better ways to integration publishing concepts into the OWP proper. In addition, there are other (non-W3C) groups that have expressed interest in the development of PWP-compatible containers for content distribution.  You also have – today – multiple proprietary extensions or variants to EPUB.  I suspect (though have no intimate knowledge) that the companies behind them may want to get behind a common “base” on which they can then apply their extensions.

To that end, I believe that WP will absolutely be able to have a test suite and implementations.  However, PWP may indeed be a more “fuzzy” thing to enable the wider use cases that are envisioned for it.

Leonard
  

On 4/19/17, 12:01 PM, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

    Le 19/04/2017 à 17:48, Leonard Rosenthol a écrit :
    
    > Daniel – We have already agreed on the model of WP->PWP->EPUB, as this enables the development of alternative packaging models.
    
    No, sorry, we have not. The BG has agreed on that to shape its
    proposal to the W3C Membership. The W3C Membership hasn't yet and this
    is what this Charter Review is all about.
    
    Process question: since EPUB 4 will be the only "application" of (P)WP
    at the end of the proposed Charter, how do you propose to have a Test
    Suite and Implementation Reports for that spec? Can it even meet the
    success criteria outlined in Section 2.3 ? In other words, can it be
    on the REC track or is it another Note ?
    
    > For example, EPUB 4 may not want to use the packaging model currently underway in W3C BUT we still want EPUB 4 to be a valid PWP.  I see no reason to undo that decision.
    
    Ah, right, the « The definition of packaging for Packaged Web
    Publications should consider this format as (one of) its standard
    format(s) » from Section 2.1. Well. Most reading systems don't
    correctly implement the single packaging format they have to deal
    with at this time so multiple ones...
    
    </Daniel>

Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 16:54:08 UTC