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

Hi Makoto,

>From all the great information provided by you, I understood the following.
- The ISo drafting rules are quite different than W3C drafting rules. So, most probably we will have to re-draft EPUB accessibility specs for ISO if the current rules of ISO persist.
- We should wait for October ISO meeting before we make decision on redrafting, because there is a possibility that ISO decide to change some rules in October.

The next question is what effect it have on us as EPUB 3 CG group.
- If we are looking for EPUB accessibility spec 1.0 to go for ISO then this will have an effect.
- But if we intend to work on ISO standardization of EPUB accessibility spec 1.1 then it may not be having much effect, because the new spec will cbe released in next year. 
If the members invoke ISO to change rules in October, will ISO be able to settle its rules in 6 to 8 months?

With regards
Avneesh
From: MURATA Makoto 
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 03:29
To: public-epub3@w3.org 
Subject: Re: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y

Leonard, 

You are very right.  As far as I know, ITTF does not pay much attention 
to what committees say.   I am hoping that they will pay more attention 
to what member bodies (who pay) say.  It would be nice if member
bodies in the upcoming JTC1 plenary read the JTC 1 Project
Editors’ Forum Report (prepared by the SC22 chair, Rex Jaeschke)
in advance.

Regards,
Makoto 

2017-08-07 4:49 GMT+09:00 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:

  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>:

    > 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] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
    Sent: August 5, 2017 10:42 PM
    To: 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>:

      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] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
      Sent: August 5, 2017 8:17 PM
      To: 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



      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





-- 


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto