Re: DPUB ARIA 2.0 in a charter?

My default answer is to prefer a joint deliverable. It helps with 
coordination and bouncing features around to the most appropriate spec. 
I think a DPub ARIA 2.0 should be doable within the current ARIA WG 
charter, since we're doing DPub ARIA 1.0 under that charter and a 2.0 
version should be viewed as clearly within the same scope. While the 
current charter doesn't formally describe joint deliverables, I don't 
think it stops us from working on it if the new DPub WG charter 
describes it as joint.

Some groups prefer non-joint deliverables, and the ARIA WG accepted 
discontinuing joint work on HTML-AAM for that reason. While it is not my 
preference to do that, the WG might support that if the DPub WG prefers. 
So I think that means either direction is possible. Does the DPub 
community have a preference?

Michael


On 3/1/2017 9:12 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Joanmarie, Richard,
>
> yes, you read the subject line well: we are just closing down DPUB 
> ARIA 1.0 but we already talk about 2.0:-)
>
> I am not sure you know, but the new Publishing@W3C initiative has 
> begun to work on the chartering of a Digital Publishing Working Group; 
> an initial charter text (which, obviously, will have to undergo lots 
> of changes still) is at [1].
>
> The charter, at this moment, includes a work item called DPUB-ARIA 
> 2.0. This builds on top of the DPUB-ARIA 1.0 work. I think this is an 
> issue that did come during the task force discussion: there are much 
> more terms that the community uses, and moving them into the same 
> framework as DPUB-ARIA is the right way to go (probably…).
>
> Obviously, this is long term work. But, on the charter level, we have 
> to decide on an administrative issue:
>
> "It must be decided whether this is a joint deliverable with the ARIA 
> WG or not.".
>
> Indeed, whilst for DPUB-ARIA 1.0 we did not have any other choice than 
> publishing it under the ARIA Working Group (an IG cannot publish a 
> standard), the situation is different now, and the new WG could take 
> full responsibility. We actually may not have any other choice 
> because, if I am not mistaken, the ARIA WG has just been rechartered, 
> and it may not be possible to add a new work item.
>
> However, I think this is an issue we will have to discuss and get an 
> agreement between the two working groups on how we would liaise, 
> communicate, etc (we will also have to agree on a proper text in the 
> liaison part of the charter[3]). This mail is just the first contact 
> on the subject…
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#deliverables
> [3] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#coordination
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>