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

Hello,
 
Regardless of the direction we take, I would like to suggest that the ISO specifications are made freely available in HTML. I believe that many ISO documents are only available at a cost in PDF. To promote accessibility we should avoid this restriction on our submission.
 
Best
George
 
 
From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 1:56 AM
To: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Cc: public-epub3@w3.org
Subject: Re: [a11y] Editorial changes required for creating an ISO/IEC spec for EPUB a11y
 
Avneesh
 
2017-08-07 13:44 GMT+09:00 Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> >:
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.
 
This is unlikely to change.  Japan does not intend to propose a change to 
Directives, Part 2.
 
But the current editing procedure requires that (1) you use MS Word, (2) ITTF 
creates XML from your Word doc, (3) ITTF then creates a Word doc and a 
PDF doc from the XML, (4) ITTF then sends the Word and PDF files to you, 
and (5) you will be asked to correct  many mistakes introduced during 
this process in a very short time.  Japan intends to complain here.
 
- 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.
 
At least, we hope that we will not be requested to follow the above 
procedure. 
 
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?

     
Today I spoke with Prof. Ishikawa.  He is a member of the UN
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1].  He
is also the chair of the Japanese government committee on the
Policies for Disabilities.

[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/conference-of-states-parties-to-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2/9thsession.html

I explained to him that there is a plan to create an ISO/IEC
version of EPUB Accessibility.  He immediately asked whether
it will be an International Standard or Technical
Specification.  I said that the plan is to create a Technical
Specification.  He said that a Technical Specification will
not be considered as a de jure standard by the Japanese
government, and strongly requested an IS rather than a TS.
 
I thus would like the CG to create ISs for both EPUB 3.0.1 and 
EPUB Accessibility.
 
Regards,
Makoto
 
 
With regards
Avneesh
From: MURATA Makoto 
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 03:29
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
 
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com> > on behalf of MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> >
Date: Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:29 AM
To: "public-epub3@w3.org <mailto:public-epub3@w3.org> " <public-epub3@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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] 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] 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



 
-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto



 
-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto