- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:41:42 +0100
- To: public-digital-publishing@w3.org
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "w3t-archive@w3.org" <w3t-archive@w3.org>
As requested, my comments on the two draft charters:
- I think the Digital Publishing one makes more sense than
the eBooks only one; the Press faces the same issues the eBooks
world faces. My comments below will then be based on that
document.
- in section 1, EPUB3 is not an "upcoming" standard. It's already
a Standard, in status equivalent to W3C RECs. Work on revision 3.01
just started at IDPF.
- in section 1, I would add the following right before sentence starting
with "Although that Workshop...":
More specifically, the EPUB3 Standard relies on some W3C
technologies that have not reached a stable state yet; some of them
are already Candidate Recommendations but some others are still
Working Drafts, considered unstable by W3C Process.
- in section 1.1, I have concerns about the last item: this
can be only about the bits existing in non-W3C specs that don't exist
in W3C specs yet. Examples: epub:type attributes, -epub-* extensions
to CSS, etc.
- in my mind, an Interest Group here is only a temporary shell
created to bootstrap something. In that perspective, I'm not sure the
second item is the most important thing here. I think a better
criterion would be the creation of productive and stable *technical*
liaisons between the digital publishing industry and the W3C WGs. In
particular, a clear success criterion for me is a creation of a clear
liaison process explaining how external standards bodies can ping W3C
and how W3C can request input or comments from external standard
bodies after the success and shutdown of the IG. Who, how, where.
- I would revamp entirely section 2; please focus more on the intent
than on the precise wording below:
The deliverables include:
1 a comprehensive list of technologies used by the Digital Publishing
industry and missing from current W3C specs; each technology should
name a potential W3C WG host for the technical discussion. A
document with technical designs and corresponding
use cases will be drafted for submission to the corresponding WGs.
Existing tests suites will be attached to the document.
This document should be published as one or several W3C Interest
Group Notes.
It is important to understand that this will remain an ongoing
effort and that the list should be updated even after the shutdown
of the IG.
2 a comprehensive and *prioritized* list of W3C specifications that
are important to the digital publishing industry but are still in
unstable state in W3C. A collection of use cases will be attached to
that list. This document should be published as one or several W3C
Interest Group Notes.
It is important to understand that this will remain an ongoing
effort and that the list should be updated even after the shutdown
of the IG.
- isn't a 2 years' life for such an IG a lot?
</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 10:42:10 UTC