Re: Recommendation from the RFP reviewers - epubcheck

+1

2018年8月20日(月) 22:47 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:

> +1
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On 20 Aug 2018, at 15:21, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm impressed by the thorough and thoughtful work done by the RFP
> reviewers, and I am grateful that they took the time to do this.  I
> support their conclusions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:11 PM Rachel Comerford
> <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello SC,
>
> The epubcheck RFP reviewers have written a recommendation based on the
> proposals that were sent for epubcheck updating. I've included the
> recommendation below for discussion either over email or in our next
> meeting.
>
> Our goal is to complete the selection process by August 27th.
>
> Thanks,
> Rachel
>
>
> Dear Steering Committee Members,
>
> The RFP review committee has met to discuss our recommendations on how to
> proceed with the EpubCheck proposals. We have all reviewed the proposals
> separately, and discussed our findings as a group. Given limited guidance
> from the steering committee, we discussed what we felt was important for
> the ongoing effort and how the proposals fit those goals, in addition to
> their technical details.
>
> Although the group received 3 proposals, we decided to consider the
> proposal from Suberic as two distinct offerings, one a complete rewrite,
> the other a continuation of the existing code. After lengthy discussion,
> the group rejected the idea of a rewrite in Python. While there was some
> support for a Javascript version, there were no proposals for that, and
> even then there was no consensus. For these reasons, we rejected the Python
> proposal.
>
> There was significant concern around the Evident Point proposal. Consensus
> was that the time estimates were extremely aggressive and that either they
> would not be able to deliver on time, or were not planning on making as
> significant changes as the reviewers felt were needed. Specific examples of
> difficult to deliver items were one week for the API work, and two weeks
> for the test suite refactor. Given that, the group felt this was the
> weakest of the three remaining proposals, and the reviewers can not
> recommend accepting it.
>
> Given the two remaining proposals, DAISY and the Java-based Suberic one,
> the reviewers felt that the DAISY proposal’s long time frame—with an EPUB
> 3.2 release front-loaded and comparable to the other proposals—was a
> feature, as it would provide better direction for the project over that
> time. Also, DAISY has an institutionally vested interest in the success of
> EPUB. Their proposal also explicitly addresses Nu HTML Checker work, and
> overall had the most detailed milestones. For these reasons we feel it is a
> stronger proposal than the one from Suberic. However, the reviewers also
> noted the strong EPUB experience available to Suberic and their immediate
> availability, and would like to urge that DAISY consider subcontracting
> some or all of the work to Suberic in the interest of creating a larger
> developer base for EpubCheck, meeting a timely release date for 3.2 support
> and shortening the overall development time frame.
>
>
> Rachel Comerford | Senior Director of Content Standards and Accessibility
> | T 212.576.9433
>
> Macmillan Learning
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
> --
======================
(株) 講談社
吉井 順一

Jun’Ichi Yoshii
Kodansha、Publishers, Ltd.
     2-12-21 Otowa, Bunkyo-ku
     Tokyo 112-8001 Japan


email: j-yoshii@kodansha.co.jp
Tel:    +813-5395-3401
Fax:   +813-5395-3714
======================