W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publishingbg@w3.org > May 2018

Re: EPUB and ISO

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 07:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CALvn5ECHk61CU137FFwjSBMvVPq6oDKVzwtiqegREVRsVpVrgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
2018年5月17日(木) 0:02 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:

> Makoto-san, the problem is that EPUB 3.0 is past-due to go through
> “systematic review” and so 3.0.1 is being considered the “upgrading” of the
> TS to an IS.  As such, it can’t go through Fast Track since it’s an upgrade
> and not a new standard.  And if we don’t do something as an IS, using the
> normal track, then 3.0 will be cancelled/removed (as a TS has a limited
> life span).
>
>


Leonard,

Will see.   I will cotact the SC34 secretariat again.  Please do not make
any decisions in JWG7 other than not publishing  TSs.

Regards,
Makoto

>
>
> So from your message and Luc’s, it would seem that the direction forward
> would be to develop 3.2 as an ISO international standard to replace
> 3.0…with the pros & cons as discussed in your GDoc…
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> *From: *MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:58 PM
>
>
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: EPUB and ISO
>
> Leonard,
>
>
>
>  I spoke with the secretariat of SC34 several  times about this topic. If
> Korea  submits 3.0.1 as fast tracked DISs, no rewriting is required.  The
> interpretation  of the secretariat matters in JTC1.  It is the only
> authoritative interpretation.
>
>
>
> 2018年5月16日(水) 15:55 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:
>
> I am sitting in the JWG7 meeting in Lisbon discussing moving EPUB 3.0.1
> forward as an ISO IS (international standard) as requested by this group
> (and others).  After reviewing tdirectives, we have all agreed that not
> only **MUST** the document go forward as an IS (fast -due to the current
> TS having expired!), but in order to do so it **MUST** be reformatted to
> ISO specs.
>
>
>
> I know that this group felt strongly that if that was required, that
> perhaps the work should take place with 3.1 instead of 3.0.1.  is that
> still the case?  Can I speak to the committee on behalf of the BG (since I
> am a member of the BG)?
>
>
>
> We  should  absolutely  completely  forget  3.1.  The  successor of 3.0 is
> 3.2, as agreed  in the  PBG.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
> Also, even if ISO were to move 3.0.1 forward, there are no resources
> available to do the necessary reformatting – which is also blocking things.
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 05:37:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 17 May 2018 05:37:40 UTC