W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > March 2017

BG vs. WG (was Re: Updated the charter text)

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:25:09 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D41E3668-3B90-4A44-B033-E6F2FF6E2E49@adobe.com>
> Publishing BG who, albeit still nascent, is the body that should drive the charter development in this case
Let’s be careful about this, Ivan.

The BG can contribute to the charter.  But at the end of the day, the WG itself sets its own charter.


On 3/1/17, 3:38 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

    Hi Chris,
    thanks for the review. I will take care of the obvious changes in the text (comments below) but I would like to ask you a favour for some others. We have to be careful that, from now on, any significant change in the charter would be done with the possible contribution of the Publishing BG who, albeit still nascent, is the body that should drive the charter development in this case. As a result, we prefer to have the issues submitted and discussed on the charter's github issues:

    would it be possible for you to submit issues for some of these below? I could do it in your name of course, but I believe it is better if it is submitted by you.
    See comments below
    > On 28 Feb 2017, at 21:48, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
    > On 2017-02-28 04:43, Ivan Herman wrote:
    >> Dear all,
    >> I have made the editorial changes on the charter, as agreed on yesterday's call. It is always a good idea to check, however, to see if I made a mistake… See
    >> https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/

    > In general this looks good and i am glad to see it uses the charter template which will ease AC review.
    Note that I have made a slight addition to the CSS to intend the (sub)sections a bit. I believe this will also make it more readable...
    > In particular, the scope section is good (and that is more important than the list of deliverables, actually).
    > I have a few detailed  comments on the charter:
    > 1) License.
    > I strongly suggest changing to the  W3C Software and Document license. This is the same as the document license (for the actual document text) and the same as the software license for examples, code snippets etc which is important as the Document License *forbids copying or modifying examples*. And we want people to be able to do that.
    Ah. I did not realize there is this difference. Although the initial choice was made without too much thinking, I would still prefer if this change was tracked on the issue list. Could you?
    > 2) History
    > You can comment out the history for a new charter, and un-comment it when the charter gets extended or otherwise modified after initial approval.
    Good idea. Done.
    > 3)  CSS WG
    > The current text "A number of features described in the Web Publication UCR document (e.g., personalization) may require new CSS functionalities " is true, but says nothing about coordination. Is the expectation that new capabilities are developed in the DPubWG? Developed jointly? Developed by providing UC&R and asking CSS WG to develop them? Something else?
    > Also, could DPubWG help CSS WG in the development and testing of existing and new capabilities that are needed by Digital Publishing.
    You are right this is to be made more precise, and this has not been developed properly. Again, could you put this into the issue list? I would expect Dave or Florian, who have been on both sides, could give some more proper wording.
    > 4) Reference drafts
    > Is it correct that none of the proposed deliverables have reference drafts? See
    > http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html#normative

    Hm. I have to understand what this means.
    - for the (P)WP work the only technical document we have is the WP draft document that the IG plans to publish as a note[1]. I do not think that qualifies as a 'reference draft'
    - for the ARIA work, there is a document that is currently undergoing the usual rec track route in the ARIA WG[2]. The plan is that the ARIA WG would publish this as a Rec soon, and the work in this WG would not qualify as a re-work of [2] but, rather, a completely new set of terms that extend[2]. Again, I do not think [2] would therefore qualify as a reference draft, right? ([2] is listed as an input document to this WG, though)
    - for the possible EPUB4 work we would of course rely on EPUB3, but that is a closed, published standard. Again, it is an input document but, I believe, not a reference draft.
    Am I correct with these assumptions? Because if so, I believe we are fine.
    [1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/

    [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/

    > 5) Typos.
    > s/earlierst/earliest
    > s/A Web Publication< (WP)/A Web Publication (WP)
    > s/ARIA Module&2.0/ARIA Module 2.0
    Oops. Done…
    Thnks again!
    > --
    > Chris Lilley
    > @svgeesus
    > Technical Director @ W3C
    > W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
    > W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media
    Ivan Herman, W3C
    Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
    Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

    mobile: +31-641044153
    ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704


Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 13:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:50 UTC