Re: [External] My opinions about the future of EPUB 3.2

Folks,

Rick wrote:


>    - The proposals (to create detailed compliance levels in the spirit of
>    the work done for WCAG, and to ‘fix the broken contract that bugs are
>    evidence of’) are excellent, and could build on top of a 3.2 rec track
>    specification.
>    -
>
> I also would like to separate EPUB 3.2  and compliance levels.

Yesterday, I spoke with some Japanese involved in
e-publishing business.  In Japan, thanks to the small
profile of EBPAJ, EPUB 3 works.  Thus, nobody is
interested in eliminating non-interoperable features
from EPUB 3.2.  A common reaction is "Don't mess up!".

Therefore, I would like to bless EPUB 3.2 as a REC no matter
how non-interoperable it is.  But I do see advantages of
an interoperable subset (or compliance levels).  Thus, I
welcome a separate specification (possibly a REC) for
such a subset.

Long time ago, W3C create WebCGM as a REC.  It
is a subset of an international standard,
ISO/IEC 8632:1999(CGM).  I am wondering if we
can do something similar.

Regards,
Makoto