- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:29:18 +0100
- To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
- Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <whmccoy@gmail.com>
- Message-Id: <50CDD464-6C0F-4904-9411-45BA236451AB@w3.org>
Just to make clear what a 'joint' publication mean in a formal sense that any formal vote on the document (publishing a 1st Draft, advancement to CR, etc) should be done by _both_ Working Groups. I practice, in my experience (Michael, you probably have more experience in this than I do), what happens is that one WG takes the lead on the work, possibly with experts from the other WG regularly attending the discussions. In some sense, the activity would be analogous to the dpub-aria work we did via the IG+ARIA WG (separate calls, mailing lists, etc) except that through an obligation of vote we would be forcing both groups to be a bit more involved (in the case of DPUB ARIA 1 the IG did not really participate or comment, except for the 2-3 persons who were active in the work itself). > On 1 Mar 2017, at 22:54, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com <mailto:garth@google.com>> wrote: > > Joint sounds good to me. We can adjust the draft charter to reflect that. > > And we're still "joint" even if the bulk of the heavy lifting is on one side or the other (we do have a very engaged group on "our" side) -- so we can burn that bridge later! :-) > > Cool, Ivan? > > Best, > Garth > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: > My default answer is to prefer a joint deliverable. It helps with coordination and bouncing features around to the most appropriate spec. I think a DPub ARIA 2.0 should be doable within the current ARIA WG charter, since we're doing DPub ARIA 1.0 under that charter and a 2.0 version should be viewed as clearly within the same scope. While the current charter doesn't formally describe joint deliverables, I don't think it stops us from working on it if the new DPub WG charter describes it as joint. > > Some groups prefer non-joint deliverables, and the ARIA WG accepted discontinuing joint work on HTML-AAM for that reason. While it is not my preference to do that, the WG might support that if the DPub WG prefers. So I think that means either direction is possible. Does the DPub community have a preference? > > Michael > > On 3/1/2017 9:12 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >> Joanmarie, Richard, >> >> yes, you read the subject line well: we are just closing down DPUB ARIA 1.0 but we already talk about 2.0:-) >> >> I am not sure you know, but the new Publishing@W3C initiative has begun to work on the chartering of a Digital Publishing Working Group; an initial charter text (which, obviously, will have to undergo lots of changes still) is at [1]. >> >> The charter, at this moment, includes a work item called DPUB-ARIA 2.0. This builds on top of the DPUB-ARIA 1.0 work. I think this is an issue that did come during the task force discussion: there are much more terms that the community uses, and moving them into the same framework as DPUB-ARIA is the right way to go (probably…). >> >> Obviously, this is long term work. But, on the charter level, we have to decide on an administrative issue: >> >> "It must be decided whether this is a joint deliverable with the ARIA WG or not.". >> >> Indeed, whilst for DPUB-ARIA 1.0 we did not have any other choice than publishing it under the ARIA Working Group (an IG cannot publish a standard), the situation is different now, and the new WG could take full responsibility. We actually may not have any other choice because, if I am not mistaken, the ARIA WG has just been rechartered, and it may not be possible to add a new work item. >> >> However, I think this is an issue we will have to discuss and get an agreement between the two working groups on how we would liaise, communicate, etc (we will also have to agree on a proper text in the liaison part of the charter[3]). This mail is just the first contact on the subject… >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ivan >> >> >> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/ <https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/> >> [2] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#deliverables <https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#deliverables> >> [3] https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#coordination <https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#coordination> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> >> mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:+31%206%2041044153> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> >> >> >> >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Publishing@W3C Technical Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2017 09:29:38 UTC