W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Publication request for a FPWD of a future Interest Group Note by the DPUB IG

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:00 +0200
Cc: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0B5802A5-028D-4D1D-B500-FFADCA15039F@w3.org>
To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>
Hi Bill,

> On 20 Aug 2015, at 18:56 , Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
> 
> Ditto, but it raises a process question for me. Typically W3C WGs, in my understanding, do not concern themselves much with tracking or lobbying around implementation status of existing specification features. Thus section 2.1, and many of the issues in sections 3-9, would not seem to be within the purview of W3C WG to make progress on, other than perhaps for the corner case of making known the importance to the publishing community of thinly-implemented features that might otherwise become candidates for deprecation or removal. Of course the browser vendors participate in the WGs so it's great to use that forum as a means to make these issues known and helpful to see them in the overall prioritization but it seems what we really want out of CSS WG is progress on the issues in section 2.2 and 2.3.

This is not fully true. It is correct that the WG's core job is to develop specifications. But all WG-s I have participated in the past or present regularly tried to contact current or possible implementers. That often meant active lobbying. As Dave emphasized, any Recommendation must go through a Candidate Recommendation phase, meaning that real and at least two independent implementations must exist before that document can move forward. It is always up to the WG to decide on the exact terms of the "exit criteria" (as it is called in the W3C jargon) of a Candidate Recommendation phase, and there are WG-s the impose even tougher criteria than the one I mentioned. Features can be (and are) removed from a Recommendation if criteria are not met (a good example is microdata whose development was closed as a WG Note instead of a Recommendation or, an issue we met recently, the <details> element of HTML which did not make it in the HTML5 Recommendation for this reason either); alternatively, documents may be "stuck" in CR status for a long time until the criteria are met.

In this sense, I believe that the contribution is very valuable to the CSS WG...

> 
> I may be incorrect about this but, if not. it leads to the question of whether the group should consider additional means beyond CSS WG to lobby browser vendors to better meet these identified needs of the publishing community.

Although I believe you are incorrect:-) I nevertheless fully agree with your conclusion! Yes, if we can actively lobby, with the weight of the publishing market behind us, to have browser vendors implement a particular feature, that would be a win. For everybody. And that should indeed be the topic of our discussions, too.

> For example, I understand that W3C is having periodic meetings with browser vendors, although I don't know if the agendas include lobbying for the needs of particular market segments.

I do not think why that would not be the case (although I am not a participant of those meetings).

Cheers!

Ivan

> 
> It also raises a more trivial question of whether the document in its current form could be more clear in what we are asking of the CSS WG. Personally, I found the mixing of implementation gaps with missing specification features a bit confusing in the detail sections (3-9). It could perhaps be clarified if the issues in these sections were either color-coded differently or had some designation (e.g. I/S/D). Actually I see there being some gray area between "spec" and "design" so it might be sufficient to show it as two buckets.
> 
> --Bill
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org> wrote:
> > Thanks to Dave for his incredible work on publishing DPUB's Priorities for CSS!
> 
> +1
> 
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
> Thanks to Dave for his incredible work on publishing DPUB's Priorities for CSS!
> http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4938
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dpub-css-priorities-20150820/
> 
> 
> Tzviya Siegman
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis Ah-Kang [mailto:denis@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:44 AM
> To: Ivan Herman; Webreq
> Cc: W3C Communication Team; Thierry Michel; Chris Lilley; Ralph Swick; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Markus Gylling; Dave Cramer
> Subject: Re: Publication request for a FPWD of a future Interest Group Note by the DPUB IG
> 
> Hi
> 
> The document has been published on http://www.w3.org/TR/ and news is available at http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4938.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maria and Denis
> 
> On 08/18/2015 10:45 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > Denis,
> >
> > This is an official publication request for the publication a document for the DPUB IG on Thursday the 17th of August. The document, in final form, is on github (see address below) but I will put it onto TR and check it later today. The documents is as follows:
> >
> > Priorities for CSS from the Digital Publishing Interest Group
> >
> > Proposed publication date: 20 August, 2015 Current Editor's draft is
> > at: http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pagination/priorities.html
> > Undated URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-css-priorities/
> > Dated URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dpub-css-priorities-20150820/
> >
> > Abstract
> >     This document documents CSS features needed by the digital publishing community, as determined by the W3C Digital Publishing Interest Group.
> >
> > Proposed SOTD
> >     See: http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pagination/priorities.html#status
> >
> > The request for approval has been sent to the Domain Lead[1] and hope to get the approval later today.
> >
> > We apologize for the rush, but there is a publishing moratorium next week… on the other hand, there is a CSS Houdini Face-to-face coming up next week in Paris, and it would be helpful to have this document being published by then.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/team-ink/2015Aug/0047.html
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman, W3C
> > Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> > mobile: +31-641044153
> > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 


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





Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 07:00:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:08 UTC