Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Actually the IG agreed to it in the development of the charter.  Nothing
> to do with the BG, AFAIK.
>

I believe it can be construed that the BG at least implicitly endorsed the
IG consensus as part of its charter review and refinement process.


> AFAIK, EPUB 4 will be the only application of PWP coming from the W3C.


I think it is premature to predict this and I hope we will have multiple
applications (else why have PWP and EPUB 4 as separate things?). For
example, the Readium Foundation has an open source project underway that's
developing a new software architecture  that is centered around a
JSON-based serialization that meets many criteria posed for (P)WP and as an
intermediate format is able to support both today's EPUB as well as other
formats (for audio books, comics, etc.).  This is mentioned as an input
document to the charter and I would hope and expect that in addition to an
EPUB 4 the more general PWP format could be harmonized with this "Readium
2" work in the timeframe of the new WG.  While this work could be only "WP"
(sans packaging, a la my understanding of Adobe's work-in-progress to add
OWP content to PDF), there is at least one Readium 2 application in
development that is using ZIP packaging.


> But WP isn’t even a “format” (at least in my view of it) and is more about
> better ways to integration publishing concepts into the OWP proper. In
> addition, there are other (non-W3C) groups that have expressed interest in
> the development of PWP-compatible containers for content distribution.  You
> also have – today – multiple proprietary extensions or variants to EPUB.  I
> suspect (though have no intimate knowledge) that the companies behind them
> may want to get behind a common “base” on which they can then apply their
> extensions.
>
> To that end, I believe that WP will absolutely be able to have a test
> suite and implementations.  However, PWP may indeed be a more “fuzzy” thing
> to enable the wider use cases that are envisioned for it.
>
> Leonard
>
>
> On 4/19/17, 12:01 PM, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-
> innovations.com> wrote:
>
>     Le 19/04/2017 à 17:48, Leonard Rosenthol a écrit :
>
>     > Daniel – We have already agreed on the model of WP->PWP->EPUB, as
> this enables the development of alternative packaging models.
>
>     No, sorry, we have not. The BG has agreed on that to shape its
>     proposal to the W3C Membership. The W3C Membership hasn't yet and this
>     is what this Charter Review is all about.
>
>     Process question: since EPUB 4 will be the only "application" of (P)WP
>     at the end of the proposed Charter, how do you propose to have a Test
>     Suite and Implementation Reports for that spec? Can it even meet the
>     success criteria outlined in Section 2.3 ? In other words, can it be
>     on the REC track or is it another Note ?
>
>     > For example, EPUB 4 may not want to use the packaging model
> currently underway in W3C BUT we still want EPUB 4 to be a valid PWP.  I
> see no reason to undo that decision.
>
>     Ah, right, the « The definition of packaging for Packaged Web
>     Publications should consider this format as (one of) its standard
>     format(s) » from Section 2.1. Well. Most reading systems don't
>     correctly implement the single packaging format they have to deal
>     with at this time so multiple ones...
>
>     </Daniel>
>
>
>