Fwd: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter'

A second objection…



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: sysbot+wbs@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+wbs@w3.org> (Daniel Glazman via WBS Mailer)
> Subject: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter'
> Date: 18 April 2017 at 11:03:01 GMT+2
> To: team-digitalpub-review@w3.org <mailto:team-digitalpub-review@w3.org>,w3c-archive@w3.org <mailto:w3c-archive@w3.org>
> Resent-From: team-digitalpub-review@w3.org <mailto:team-digitalpub-review@w3.org>
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs-b6a1d8daf1cca01394c80d36303ae836@w3.org <http://www.w3.org/mid/wbs-b6a1d8daf1cca01394c80d36303ae836@w3.org>>
> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3
> Message-Id: <wbs-b6a1d8daf1cca01394c80d36303ae836@w3.org <mailto:wbs-b6a1d8daf1cca01394c80d36303ae836@w3.org>>
> List-Id: <team-digitalpub-review.w3.org <http://team-digitalpub-review.w3.org/>>
> 
> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
> Publishing Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for Disruptive
> Innovations by Daniel Glazman.
> 
> 
> The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
> supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].
> 
> Additional comments about the proposal:
>   Disruptive Innovations spent years advocating for a merger between W3C
> and IDPF, saying that EPUB is one of the most important customer of the
> Web, does not differ from the Web itself and should therefore be done
> inside a W3C WG. We are then totally in favor of a WG handling the future
> of Publications.
> 
> If changes were applied to the most important prose in this document (the
> description of the EPUB 4 deliverable in section 3.1) after comments from
> us, the proposed Charter remains a confusing proposal for several important
> reasons:
> 
> 1. its Scope (section 2) is too long and too detailed. This is not a
> "scope", it's a list of technical and functional requirements that should
> be decided by the WG itself and absolutely not imposed by the Charter.
> 
> 2. Web Publications (the DPUB IG document) is only a W3C Working Draft. Its
> requirements' document is also only a W3C Working Draft. There are in no
> way normative and should not be referenced that way as source for WG work.
> Furthermore, we have always found rather surprising these documents are on
> the REC track. They should probably be Notes.
> 
> 3. as a result, we think the last sentence of Section 2 before Section 2.1
> that reads « EPUB 4 must not be in conflict with Web Publications; it must
> be a type of Web Publication that provides the predictability and
> interoperability that this ecosystem has come to rely on » should be
> entirely dropped. It's the WG Membership's role to define precisely through
> consensus what EPUB 4 will be and if the outcome is in conflict with WP, so
> be it.
> 
> 4. the Input Documents section 2.1 does not even list html or CSS as input
> documents... EPUB 4 will have to make major choices there and they should
> be listed.
> 
> 5. the whole Charter is extremely oriented in one direction, a solution
> based on PWP. We have already expressed strong disagreements with that
> bias, and that led to the changes in section 3.1 detailed at the top of
> this review. What Digital Publications will be should be a decision
> entirely in the hands of the future WG. WP and PWP are Input Documents the
> future WG may or may not consider, period. As an example, WPs have a
> manifest, and we are far from sure at this time all digital publications
> need a manifest.
> 
> 6. if Packaging becomes a regular citizen of the Web, there is no need for
> a Packaged Web Publications deliverable. Referencing Web Platform WG's work
> on packaging should be enough.
> 
> 7. we have no idea what the Web Publications deliverable represents. That
> document (excerpt from its Status section) « outlines a general vision and
> should not be considered a technical specification ». Its usefulness on
> the REC track is far from obvious to us.
> 
> 8. EPUB was released in 2007. EPUB 3 was released in 2014. Both were
> released without a Test Suite or Implementation Reports. We are therefore
> considering a release of EPUB 4 in Q4 2019 as quite severely
> overoptimistic, especially in the case of a WG Membership that is not
> necessarily used to W3C common practices and tools.
> 
> 9. the Liaison with the Publishing BG is too formal; the prose reading «
> The two groups will formally cooperate to ensure that such issues are duly
> handled by the Publishing Working Group », it implies that requests from
> the Publishing BG *must* be handled, with a high priority, by the WG. We
> very strongly disagree with that hand of the Publishing BG over the
> Publishing WG; the W3C and the IDPF have merged, and our goal is not to
> recreate a IDPF hierarchy inside W3C over the head of legacy W3C
> Membership.
> 
> Disruptive Innovations is therefore requesting a rather large revamp of
> this Charter:
> 
> A. its only goals should be EPUB 4 and DPUB-ARIA 2. WP and PWP are in our
> opinion not - and never were - eligible to the REC track.
> 
> B. its scope Section should be entirely rewritten, the current one goes far
> beyond a "scope".
> 
> C. what will be EPUB 4 should be in the hands, without ANY KIND OF
> RESTRICTION, of the WG's Membership.
> 
> D. WP and PWP should be only (non-normative) Input Documents that « may be
> considered (or not...) by the Working Group »
> 
> E. Section 2.1 should make a difference between normative and non-normative
> documents (for instance WP and PWP)
> 
> F. the Publishing BG should be a Liaison like others; the too formal
> relationship between the WG and this WG should be dropped.
> 
> G. the REC ETAs should be reviewed, we're not sure they are realistic
> 
> We plan to join the WG, review the deliverables, and implement them in our
> BlueGriffon editor.
> 
> 
> 
> The reviewer's organization intends to participate in these groups:
>   - Publishing Working Group
> 
> The reviewer's organization:
>   - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
>   - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
> reports.
>   - intends to develop products based on this work.
> 
> 
> Comments about the deliverables:
>   BlueGriffon wysiwyg editor
> 
> 
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/publwg/ <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/publwg/> until 2017-05-14.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> The Automatic WBS Mailer
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>