RE: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

Dear Makoto, thank you very much for the detailed information.


So for PBG folks, my take is the following

 

a. While it would be possible in principle to work with S. Korea to upgrade EPUB 3 from TS (Technical Specification) to IS (International Standard), and in the process could upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1, this would be considerable work and presents some obstacles since some of the dependent W3C specifications normatively referenced by EPUB 3.1 and earlier revisions are not themselves final Recommendations but only Candidates Recommendations or even Working Drafts. With everything else we have on our collective plate I can’t recommend that we pursue it at this time. 

 

b.	As Makoto points out it would be possible to work with S. Korea and SC34 to upgrade the current EPUB 3.0 TS to 3.1 but not through “fast track” but the normal procedure. I don’t know that this would significantly change the effort required for this , mainly to process incoming errata reports, even if the only result is that for “righteous” errata we commit to addressing in a future revision (as IDPF agreed to do for 3.0, and did so in 3.0.1) but it would certainly increase the risk that it would not be successful due to objections and would probably be at least somewhat more hassle overall. I think PBG members should consider, and opine about if not in tomorrow’s call then in the near future, how significant they see the benefits of such an upgrade in terms of for example supporting accessibility mandates specifying EPUB 3. I have not heard anything specific about this and perhaps it could be ‘good enough” for a11y mandates that need an ISO reference to specify TS 30135 with a note, as appropriate, recommending use of EPUB 3.1 as the current version. I don’t think we should necessarily forbid use of EPUB 3.0 particularly as the modular EPUB Accessibility specification element of EPUB 3.1 was designed to apply to EPUB 3.0 as well later (and hopefully future) revisions. But that is just my opinion. If PBG thinks it Is a high priority we could then discuss further with EPUB 3 CG and other stakeholders. But if PbG doesn’t think it is a high priority we probably should table it for now (which might mean forever as far as EPUB 3 family is concerned, although a future EPUB 4 that is a W3C Recommendation could use the W3C PAS process to become a full IS).

 

--Bill

 

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 8:31 PM
To: public-publishingbg@w3.org
Subject: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

 

Dear colleagues,

 

I plan to send a sequence of e-mails about this topic.  This first

e-mail is about procedures.  The ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 secretariat

checked the content of this e-mail.

 

1) ISO/IEC TS 30135

 

The combination of EPUB 3.0 and FXL has been published as

ISO/IEC Technical Specification 30135-1 to -7.  They were

submitted by Korea as Draft Technical Specifications using

the fast-track procedure.

 

2) Fast-track procedure

 

Member bodies (including Korea) are able to submit their national

standards as draft international standards (DISs).  Fast-tracked DISs

are voted only once for acceptance as International Standards.

 

It is not impossible for Korea to adopt EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 as national

standards and then submit it as a Draft International Standards.

 

Member bodies were allowed to submit Draft Technical Specifications,

but they are no longer allowed to so due to recent changes to ISO/IEC

directives.  Thus, Korea cannot submit EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 as Draft

Technical Specifications.

 

3) PAS procedure

 

PAS submitters (including W3C) are able to submit recommendations as

draft international standards (DISs).  PAS-submitted DISs are voted

only once for acceptance as International Standards.  No existing

versions of EPUB are W3C recommendations.  Thus, W3C is

not allowed to submit EPUB3 as draft international standards.

 

There has been no PAS process for draft technical specifications.

Thus, W3C is not allowed to submit EPUB3 as draft technical

specifications.

 

4) Normal procedure

 

It is possible to use the normal process for revising ISO/IEC 30135 in

sync with EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1.  ODF 1.1 (OASIS standard) was standardized

in ISO/IEC SC34/WG6 in this manner.  Associating Schemas with XML

documents 1.0 (W3C Working Group Note) was also standardized in

ISO/IEC SC34/WG1 in this manner.  Although the normal procedure 

requires more than one ballot, it is not so slow as long as no

oppositions are supported by other member bodies.

 

https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-xml-model-20110811/

 

What is more, SC34 has already made a resolution for using the normal

procedure for revising ISO/IEC TS 30135.

 

  Resolution 9: Revision of ISO/IEC TS 30135: 2014, Information technology -- Digital

  publishing -- EPUB3 (all parts)

 

  SC 34 creates sub-projects for a revision of TS 30135 (all parts) and

  assigns them to JWG 7 for development. The revision is to address the

  latest EPUB3 revision (3.0.1), in which parts 2 and 7 are merged. SC

  34 instructs its Secretariat to take the necessary action to obtain

  JTC 1 endorsement in accordance with JTC 1 Supplement 2.1.5.4.

 

5) Superseding

 

No matter which process is used for standardizing EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 in

ISO/IEC, the current version, ISO/IEC 30135:2014 (EPUB 3.0 and FXL),

will disappear from the ISO/IEC catalog.

 

It is not completely impossible to have more than one editions in the

ISO/IEC catalog.  In fact, ODF 1.0 (including 1.1) and 1.2 are both

in the catalog as ISO/IEC 26300:2006 and ISO/IEC 26300:2015.  But

this is a special case.  In the case of OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500), only

the latest edition is in the catalog.  Since EPUB 3.0 is an ISO/IEC

  <https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif> 

Technical Specification rather than an International Standard, I think

that there are slim chances.

 

 

Regards,

 

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4 Convenor

Head of Delegation of the Japanese SC34 mirror 
Makoto