Re: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y

Good luck with getting them to change their process!!   Two of my TCs have been trying to get them to change for years now, including have meetings with the people in charge to explain the technical problems in their current system.  Unfortunately, they were “conned” (my word choice) into purchasing a publishing system on which they spent a *lot* of $$ - and they are therefore unwilling to make another change (esp. since it would require them to almost completely toss this ‘new’ system).

Matt, you are however quite correct that something coming out of respec won’t comply with ISO guidelines…

Leonard

From: <eb2mmrt@gmail.com> on behalf of MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:29 AM
To: "public-epub3@w3.org" <public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y
Resent-From: <public-epub3@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM

Matt,

Unfortunately, the current editing process in ISO are "hopelessly broken",
as pointed out by ISO/IEC JTC 1 Project Editors’ Forum Report
(SC34 N2405).  We might want to wait for the next JTC1 plenary
in 2017 October, because member bodies (e.g., Japan) will argue
against ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) and
try to change the current process.

Regards,
Makoto



2017-08-06 21:42 GMT+09:00 Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>:
> In my understanding, outputs from the CG have no status in W3C and are thus free from W3C rules

That's what we should clear up. The documents have been converted to use respec, which requires certain things (status section, abstract, etc.) and generates others automatically (table of contents, references at the end of the document, etc.). I don't believe the output is fully compatible with ISO structure rules as I reviewed them.

I'd hate to have to maintain a document manually, although worst-case we might be able to post-process the respec output to excise unwanted parts and reshuffle.

Matt

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com> [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: August 5, 2017 10:42 PM
To: public-epub3@w3.org<mailto:public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y

Matt,

2017-08-06 11:01 GMT+09:00 Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>:
Is the idea here that a copy of the 1.0 specification will be taken and submitted to ISO with these changes, which look like they don't change anything normatively?

This is possible.

Or are we supposed to prepare a 1.1 like this and publish it in W3C?

This is also possible.

If so, I wonder how some of the ISO requirements won't conflict with respec/W3C practices.

In my understanding, outputs from the CG have no status in W3C and
are thus free from W3C rules

Regards,
Makoto

Matt

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com> [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: August 5, 2017 8:17 PM
To: public-epub3@w3.org<mailto:public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y

Folks,

Since we cannot use the fast-track procedure or PAS procedure, we are
required to follow the drafting rules of ISO/IEC.  (Note: EPUB 3.0
did not follow them, since it was fast-tracked.)

ISO/IEC Directives Part 2: Principles to structure and draft documents
intended to become International Standards, Technical Specifications
or Publicly Available Specifications.

http://www.iso.org/sites/directives/2016/part2/index.xhtml#_idTextAnchor055<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iso.org%2Fsites%2Fdirectives%2F2016%2Fpart2%2Findex.xhtml%23_idTextAnchor055&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d28638058994996038c08d4dcdfe584%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636376301595853117&sdata=70anc9k6sdA4hRVtvUr%2FrmCR7IkvcV%2BNx0y%2B5MYGpj4%3D&reserved=0>

I think that there are two significant changes.

First, we have to provide Foreword, Introduction, and Scope as
required by Directives Part 2.  This requires some work, although
we can use some text from "1. Overview" in EPUB A11Y 1.0.

Second, we have to use SHALL, MAY, and other modal verbs as required
by Directives Part 2.  Most notably, all MUSTs have to be replaced by
SHALLs.

Regards,
Makoto



--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto



--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto