W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > June 2014

Re: W3C specifications important for the DPUB industry.

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:15:54 +0200
Cc: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99FC6863-767A-4D77-8BB3-FDC42F087013@w3.org>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>

On 25 Jun 2014, at 09:37 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> Ivan,
> 
> 
> In each WD in TR  there is "Latest editor's draft" linking to the latest "work in progress" version available.

Yes. But the goal is making the life easier to our readers, so extracting these links into the table makes a lot of sense.

> 
> Furthermore, as a policy we should link to documents on W3C site.
> 

Well... these days this is a bit looser. Many groups use github, ie, the editor's drafts are stored there. We should link to those, too.

Cheers

Ivan



> Thierry
> 
> 
> On 25/06/2014 09:01, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>> On 25 Jun 2014, at 08:21 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Romain,
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for your input.
>>> I have added your spec suggestion to the table.
>>> 
>>> Note that I linked to the latest draft publish in TR (instead of trhe editor's draft on github) when there was a TR draft.
>> 
>> I wonder whether it is not worth doing both. In many WG-s the formal publications on /TR are relatively scarce, meaning that the editor's draft is significantly ahead of the latest official publication. User, implementers, etc, are usually better off looking at the editor's draft (I know it is the case in another WG where I am staff contact). Having a reference to the latest stable edition as well as the editor's draft might be of interest.
>> 
>> Of course, there are cases when this may be unnecessary, namely when the document status is CR or 'higher', ie, when the design phase is already done.
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Thierry.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 24/06/2014 10:08, Romain Deltour wrote:
>>>> Iím not a member of the DPUB IG but since youíre calling for a larger review here are a few comments:
>>>> 
>>>>   Almost all the specs from the Web Application WG are relevant IMO (if not for current EPUB 3.x, at least for the future of digital publishing). To name a few:
>>>> 
>>>>    - Manifest for web applications (WD) http://w3c.github.io/manifest/
>>>>    - Service Workers (WD) http://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/
>>>>    - Custom Elements (WD) http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/
>>>>    - HTML Imports (WD) http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/imports/
>>>>    - Shadow DOM (D) http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/
>>>> 
>>>>   The table can also include Jeni Tennisonís TAG draft on packaging:
>>>> 
>>>>    - Packaging on the Web (ED) http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
>>>> 
>>>>   The specs from the IndieUI WG may be more relevant to reading systems, but are important to adaptability and a11y:
>>>> 
>>>>    - User Context 1.0 (ED) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/default/src/indie-ui-context.html
>>>>    - Events 1.0 (WD) http://www.w3.org/TR/indie-ui-events/
>>>> 
>>>>   Note also that ARIA 1.1 is not in the table (ARIA 1.0 is), although itís already referenced by EPUB 3.0.1 (notably for its aria-describedat attribute).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>> Romain.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Romain Deltour, Software Developer
>>>> The DAISY Consortium
>>>> http://www.daisy.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 24 juin 2014, at 08:33, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> A few months ago I had started an initial list of W3C specifications that are important for the Digital Publishing industry [1], as it is required in our interest Group Charter deliverables [1].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks to them, a few participants of the DPUB IG have edited and update this table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to request a review from a larger group of participants, to enrich this list with W3C technologies that you may be aware of and are missing in this table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then we will have to  prioritized this list, according to our charter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your collaboration,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thierry Michel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/W3C_specs_for_DPUB
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/digpubig.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 01/04/2014 15:13, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Per my action item, I have started a list of W3C specifications that are
>>>>>> important for the Digital Publishing industry.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/W3C_specs_for_DPUB
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> this is only a start, therefore  feel free to add/update this table with
>>>>>> new specs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you have any issues regarding this task, let me know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thierry.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me






Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 08:16:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:50 UTC