[wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
Publishing Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for Apple, Inc. by
David Singer.


The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, but supports
the proposal whether or not the changes are adopted.

Additional comments about the proposal:
   Overall, the charter is too narrative and not sufficiently definitional.
Most seriously, the scope section doesn't seem to define clearly what's in
scope. It's a long discursive introduction, but we can't find "The scope of
the WG is limited to defining ..." (technologies which are uniquely needed
to support publications, and selecting general technologies, perhaps with
limits, that must be supported in publications? We are not sure). In a
charter the scope allows us to work out how much work this might be, the
interaction with other groups, the degree of IPR commitment, and so on: a
crisp definition which the chairs and members can later use to answer "is X
in scope?" is probably the most important part of a charter, and is
essential.

The concept of 'publication' is central to this charter, and we suspect
that 'publication' in the mission should read 'Web Publication' and say
"(see below)", and that the Web Publication definition that starts 2.0 (the
second-level heading of this first sub-section is missing) should be a
standalone definition paragraph. "Definition: Web Publication: A collection
of one or more constituent resources, organized together in a uniquely
identifiable grouping that may be presented using standard Open Web
Platform technologies". (Surely there are constraints on the number and
nature of external dependencies, aren't there, if offline consumption is to
work?)

Please ensure that all acronyms are spelled out on first use.  FRBR is
unexplained, for example, as is WCAG.

Please clarify whether the input documents are being used as inspiration,
references, or as sources of initial text (notably “Web Publications Use
Cases & Requirements” and “Importance of EPUB”). It's unclear what
"considered...as direct inputs" means. We expect to mine these for text,
use them to inform discussion, make them into normative references, or
what?

The out of scope should probably say that the maintenance of any spec.
previously developed outside W3C is out of scope (not just EPUB 3, or is it
the only possible candidate?).

We have a preference not to use 'half a day' (is that 4 or 12 hours?) but
"4 hours".

In section 6, where we solicit public input, we need to say that the chairs
will watch for Contributions from non-WG members and take appropriate
action (e.g. asking them to join the WG). (To ensure appropriate licensing
commitments.)

The document would benefit from a proof edit; capitalization is
inconsistent, grammar could be improved and so on. ("ergonomy"?, "These
document provides", "implementors" is usually "implementers", "e.g" without
the second period, …).



The reviewer's organization intends to participate in these groups:
   - Publishing Working Group

The reviewer's organization:
   - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/publwg/ until 2017-05-14.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Saturday, 6 May 2017 15:12:08 UTC