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

Rick,

in case you have not seen this, I believe it is a subject for discussion later today.

I will try to find out, by then, whether the type of change Vivliostyle requires is doable within our process without re-starting the voting procedure.

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
World Wide Web Consortium
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
ORCID: 0000-0003-0782-2704


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Florian Rivoal via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
Date: 18 Apr 2017, 07:30 +0200
To: public-new-work@w3.org
Subject: [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 Vivliostyle Inc.
> by Florian Rivoal.
>
>
> The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
> supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].
>
> Additional comments about the proposal:
> Vivliostyle enthusiastically supports the creation of the Publishing
> Working Group, its high level goals and scope, and the general format
> proposed in the charter.
>
> However, we think there is an important flaw in the charter that must be
> addressed first.
>
> Web Publications outlines a vision of convergence between digital
> publications and the web. We absolutely support this vision, and hope to
> contribute to its realization, both by participating in the WG and by
> integrating these technologies in our products. Convergence of digital
> publications and of the web is central to Vivliostyle's mission as a
> company.
>
> However, to our reading, the existing Web Publications documents are a
> manifesto and declaration of intent, not a concrete proposal to address the
> problem.
>
> As such, we believe that (P)WP should be in scope for this working group,
> and that concrete proposals to achieve this goal should be made, and when
> consensual should be taken up as deliverables of this working group.
>
> We are however opposed to listing WP and PWP themselves as a REC track
> deliverable with dated commitments.
>
> If "Web Publications" and "Packaged Web Publications" are meant to stay as
> general documents outlining the vision independently of any concrete
> implementable and testable incarnation, we think it would be much more
> appropriate to publish them as WG Notes.
>
> If, as their proposed inclusion on the REC track suggests, they are meant
> to be concrete technological proposals, we think the inclusion on the REC
> track is premature, as we do not believe there is consensus on, or even a
> general understanding of, what the concrete realization would be.
>
> Our concrete proposal is to:
>
> - List WP and PWP as deliverables as Working Group Notes and continue to
> refine them as vision and requirements documents
>
> - Give the possibility to the group to take on new deliverables that help
> achieve that vision when they are consensual, possibly by including
> something along these lines in the charter (inspired by the CSSWG
> charter):
>
> > The WG may create new modules within its scope to fulfill or support the
> > vision outlined in WP and PWP. If no participant in the group believes a
> > proposed module is out of scope, and the group has consensus to add it,
> > the group may add a new module. If the participants who object sustain
> > their objection after discussion, a re-charter to clarify the scope may
> be
> > needed.
>
> ~~~
>
> Independently from this objection, we also make the following suggestion
> (but do not oppose the creation of the WG on these grounds even if it was
> rejected):
>
> For the sake of maintainability and timely progress along the REC track, it
> is sometimes desirable to split a large specification into smaller modules
> (or to do the reverse operation). We do not think it is necessary at this
> point to decide whether to split any particular document into smaller
> modules, but it would be good to keep it as a possibility. We therefore
> suggest the addition of the following sentence to the deliverable section.
>
> > Also, to facilitate timely progress on the REC track and for
> > the sake of maintainability, based on consensus in the Working
> > Group, it may split or merge its deliverables.
>
>
>
> 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.
> - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
> reports.
> - intends to develop products based on this work.
> - intends to apply this technology in our operations.
>
>
> Comments about the deliverables:
> Vivliostyle develops Vivliostyle Viewer and Vivliostyle Formatter,
> respecively an interactive UA and a pdf-generating UA, with support for
> pagination and advanced typographic features based on CSS (and (X)HTML,
> SVG, MathML...).
>
> Vivliostyle's product provide an answer to Pagination
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-pwp-ucr-20170309/#pagination
> and also intends facilitate Off-lining and Archiving
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-pwp-ucr-20170309/#onloffl
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-pwp-ucr-20170309/#archiving
>
> We currently support ordinary web content as well as EPUB3 as input
> formats, and intend to support EPUB4 and other (P)WP formats as they
> appear.
>
>
> 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
>
>