Re: F2F agenda ideas

I pick up on one of the questions of Avneesh: what is our goal? As I have no knowledge of business, and only cursory knowledge of the community, let me concentrate on technology...

Part of the (technical) origins of where we are is the original WP note[1]. The existence of that note was what, partially, triggered the IDPF+W3C merge, as well as the creation of the Publishing Working Group. Maybe it is worth looking at it again.

The main message of [1] (without going into the technical details) was that publications should be part of the Web in the sense of having books (whatever we mean by 'book') simply part of an everyday browser experience; that the borderline between a 'book' and a 'web page' would become almost invisible. Pursuing this goal was what we worked on in the Working Group at the beginning, which also revealed significant and (as it turned out) difficult-to-track problems.

However, the community at large voted with their feet. Neither the publishing community nor the browser community expressed real interest in this approach; it did not fit the business model of any of them. EPUB 3.2 did it for the publishing community, and browsers do not care about the publishing industry in the first place (the short-lived Edge+EPUB experience did not prove to be successful). Ignoring these business realities was, in my view, the biggest mistake we made from early on. Hence, I believe, any technical strategy must be centered around the current model, i.e., EPUB 3.X and dedicated reading systems. Evolve it from there. 

Without going into technical details (I leave this to those who know EPUB way better than I will ever do) there may be several goals:

1. EPUB should evolve in a way that it could/would also be an attractive alternative to PDF for scholarly, educational, etc, publishing. This means it must become as pervasive and easy as PDF in terms of producing them as well as reading, annotate, sign, etc. them. Whether reading is done via a separate application (which is clearly the trend on mobiles, where 'web applications' are not particularly widespread at the moment) or via an extension to a browser on a lap-top is secondary. This does not disrupt the current EPUB business but may bring new communities in who care more  about mobile usability and accessibility, for example.

2. EPUB should evolve in par with the evolution of the underlying technologies, ie, HTML5, CSS, and (a subset of?) Javascript API-s. Ideally, any HTML5+CSS that works on the Web should work as part of an EPUB, making it possible for the content creation business to tap into the software, expertise, etc, of Web Developers (one of the important points in [1]). Relying on outdated or not-used versions of standards should not happen. (Of course, taking backward compatibility should be paramount. But that is all right: browsers still can display HTML 4 files…)

3. We should achieve the same level of compatibility among reading systems as we have today among browsers. If this means doing the painful work that was done the transition of HTML4 to HTML5 (ie, reverse engineer what browsers did to update the spec), then be it. I think everyone agrees that the current status with incompatibilities of reading systems is not a good thing. (Although EPUB3.2 made great progress, so maybe there is no problem with that any more. You tell me.)

4. Reading systems should also evolve in a more 'Webby' way (and EPUB should provide the technical underpinning to it): it should be possible to have an EPUB instance on the Web, reachable via a URI of some sort, and a reading system should be able to fetch it from the Web, display it, etc. This may not disrupt current EPUB3.2 distribution (which is is laregely dependent on off-the-Web distribution channels due to DRM) but would be vital for, say, a scholarly journal that 'simply' puts out a reference to an offline publication (which today means a pointer to a PDF file). Whether the reading system does an offline version of that publication or not is at the discretion of the reading system.

Point (4) above is, I believe, the most important aspect of [1] that I still consider valid. However, in contrast to what the WG did, EPUB 3.X must become a "Web Publication" and not define "Web Publication" as something different from EPUB 3.X. (It is unclear whether (4) above requires any change on EPUB 3.X at all, actually, or it is more a separate behavioral specification for reading systems.)

Some more side-remarks below, but otherwise I would stop there...

Ivan

P.S.  There is also a separate, albeit related issue: what do we mean by the 'Web'? It is an easy question to ask, but there is no easy answer. For many, the 'Web' is whatever browsers do; what happens outside of browser is not the 'Web'. If this is the prevalent opinion, we loose. But others take a much larger view on what being on the 'Web' means. It ism b.t.w., worth looking at [2] in this respect which does not speak about browsers, just 'user agents'. Trying to get to the essence of what makes the Web tick, here is an abbreviated version of the three main principles in the document:

1. Identification: “URIs are used to identify resources.”
2. Interaction: “Web agents communicate using standardized protocols that enable interaction through the exchange of messages which adhere to a defined syntax and semantics.”
3. Formats: “Most protocols used for representation retrieval and/or submission make use of a sequence of one or more messages, which taken together contain a payload of representation data and metadata, to transfer the representation between agents.”

Note that this does not talk about browsers, HTTP(S), HTML,... 

I believe (4) fits into the picture perfectly well. Hence what I said: EPUB 3.X = Web Publication...


[1] Web Publications for the Open Web Platform, Markus Gylling et al, https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/
[2] Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One, Ian Jacobs and Norma Walsh, https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/


> On 10 Jan 2020, at 05:43, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> Going through this thread, my serious concern is that we have jumped to the change in structure without establishing the objectives.
> First step is to establish the objectives, considering the W3C environment.
> Then we should decide what changes in the structure will help in meeting the objectives.
>  
> With regards
> Avneesh
> From: Jeff Jaffe <>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 1:01
> To: McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <> ; Dave Cramer <> ; Siegman, Tzviya <>
> Cc: Ivan Herman <> ; W3C Publishing Steering Committee <>
> Subject: Re: F2F agenda ideas
>  
> Some miscellaneous thoughts inline commenting on Tzviya's piece, Dave's, and Liisa's.
> On 1/9/2020 1:47 PM, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa wrote:
>> I would like to offer to help Tzviya chair the F2F. 
>>  
>> I hear your frustration with the SC, but I believe we still have legal reason to want to keep it going until the IDPF can officially cease to be.  Garth- can you weigh in on that?
> I'm not sure what this reason is, but there is a difference between having the SC focused on a single legal reason and its current role to do broad coordination.  If we are keeping it around exclusively for the former reason, then we should limit its authority to that topic.
>  
>>  
>> I would love for us to see a way to move forward with the SC being a more effective driver of the work across the groups. I think it might help if we considered ourselves to be more of team and not just a bunch of chairs who have to talk every couple of weeks.
> This is a possible path.  This would require a leader for the SC and a well defined agenda.  In particular, it would be helpful to be crisp - what is done by the SC and what is done by the BG.  Today, those are muddled together.
>  
>>  
>> From my own recollections of the IDPF years, we started as a trade organization and quickly started work on a standard because we realized the business was struggling without one. We ebbed and flowed through the early 2000s as the business did. We were always chasing in a way because the business competitors weren’t willing to talk about standards for things that they were launching until there were a handful doing the same thing different ways. I remember a particular moment with the board where we were looking at the mission and changed the name and re-focused to be more of a standards org than a trade org because we couldn’t afford with our budget to really be both. We wanted to keep the trade stuff going for the communication side of it (so the conference) and the contact with people who could weigh in on direction. For a long time Bill kept his ear to the ground with all of us and people beyond to try to figure out what was needed from the business side and worked closely with Markus who did that coordination on the technical side. But there were several times when the board pulled Bill back to the center to focus on what the majority of the membership needed for solid wide adoption of EPUB. Readium was one of the items that came out of that.
>>  
>> I think it is important that we spend some time when we are together (or before) to think about where we have come from and where the industry needs us to be now. I hope that we can focus on a positive and solution oriented approach to looking at what has worked and what hasn’t. I think we have a history as a group of  bringing our frustrations to the table in a way that shuts things down before they can get discussed. I would recommend that we work on framing things without painting ourselves into corners and be honest about the amount of time and energy we each have to devote so that we can identify where maybe something doesn’t seem feasible because we don’t know where the resources might come from.  We should also before the F2F note the accomplishments we’ve had over the last three years and give ourselves some credit for that. Maybe it’s not where we imagined things might go, but we’ve collectively done a lot.
> +1 to all aspects of the above paragraph.
> In terms of "a positive and solution oriented approach", it would be useful to identify specific tangible things we can do going forward - in this email thread - so we can discuss it prior to the F2F - and reach conclusions in the F2F.
>>  
>> I would like to share with you that I had an amazing conversation yesterday with a colleague at Amazon about getting involved with our work at the W3C. I can tell you more tomorrow about her insight on why they want to be involved and what their concerns are that I think it will help us with a bit of framing where might go from here.
> Indeed a program on enhancing Amazon interop could be an important direction going forward.  That shouldn't be our primary focus, but it is a good leg of a multi-legged strategy.
>>  
>> I’m looking forward to our call tomorrow and our meeting next month. I fully intend to make 2020 the beginning of a new age of digital publishing goodness.
> Wow!  +1.
>>  
>>  
>> From: Dave Cramer  <>mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com <mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com>
>> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 12:14 PM
>> To: "Siegman, Tzviya"  <>mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
>> Cc: Ivan Herman  <>mailto:ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Steering Committee  <>mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: F2F agenda ideas
>> Resent-From:  <>mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org <mailto:public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 12:14 PM
>>  
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Siegman, Tzviya < <>tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> I’ve had a bit more of a chance to think through how we can come away from the F2F with specific action items, and I’ve been thinking about what the SC and the Publishing Activity with has been struggling with the most for the past few years. Here are a few thoughts.
>>>  
>>> The IDPF was fundamentally a standards body. Markus did more than many people realized in leading the technical work. He had a remarkable skill of leading people to think that they had come to the conclusion that they wanted to create change on their own. When it came down to the nitty gritty work, it was done by maybe 15 people. The same 15 people (with a few changes) are still doing the work today. Matt Garrish has been the editor of the EPUB specs for years. Without Matt, EPUB would not exist as it does today. 
>>  
>> Yes. 
>>  
>>>  
>>> Let’s consider what the role of IDPF board was and how that transitions into leadership in the BG and whether we need an SC. The IDPF board approved spec work but was not involved in spec writing. Some members of the board participated in the WG, but that was by choice. The board worked on fiscal issues, conference planning, and proposed new work at times. Perhaps the role of the SC/ BG leadership should focus more on building community? We have seen successful events in Fukuoka. Should we be looking at workshops? Webinars? Community building? What would conferences look like? Who will fund them? How often? How do we avoid competing with an already competitive conference industry? (ebookcraft, EDRLab’s summit, etc). Building community can also mean learning to fit in with the W3C culture. That is new for many of us. 
> 
> If the IDPF folks are still around to create a conference, we should make that an explicit discussion point: do we want such a conference?  should it be annual?  what would it look like?
> Some interesting topics for a next conference include: audiobooks, accessiblity, Amazon, publishing and web, packaging, tooling. 
>> 
>>> 
>> We feel like a standards organization that's trying to be a trade organization. I think there was some of that in the IDPF days, too. Bill McCoy very much operated as an evangelist for EPUB. But it's hard to be a trade organization without a budget.
> Methodologically, I think we should not shoot down ideas before we develop them (i.e. we want to be a trade org but can't without a budget).  Instead we should first figure out what we want to achieve.  Once we have that, we can figure out how to achieve (or whether it is possible).
> Continuing with the idea that we are trying to be a trade organization, it would be useful to create a list of what "trade organization type activities" we want to get done in the next 1-3 years.  If we write them down then we can ask whether they are achievable or what funding is required.  An example is the question above that Tzviya indicated - whether we want to have conferences/webinars.
> Fwiw, I always thought that it would be the BG that picked up the traditional "IDPF playing a trade organization role" with the transition into W3C.
>>  
>> I sometimes think of how we compare to the world of web development. There are standards organizations, user agent vendors, and content providers just as in the world of ebooks. But one thing that is missing in ebooks is the idea of developer relations. I think a fair amount of the work of identifying business needs and bringing them to the standards organizations and browser vendors is done by DevRel people. We don't really have that in our world. 
>>  
>>>  
>>> The SC is not functioning as a committee. We are several people who often have conflicting goals with no leader to provide vision or help us to come to agreement about the goals. Thus, the Publishing Activity has no clear goals and no clear direction. Should we appoint a chair? Should we close the SC? The SC and BG often overlap significantly. Let’s consider why and how to manage this.
>> I am often frustrated by discussing a particular issue in a SC call, and then discussing the same issue in a BG call, and then discussing the same issue in a different BG call. At times 90% of the attendees of a BG call are SC members.
> I agree that this needs to be rationalized.  We should consider all options except the current situation.  Some options are:
> 1. Drop the SC.
> 2. Drop the SC except for some legal reason.
> 3. Empower the SC with a chair and a well defined agenda that is different from the BG.
>>  
>>> If we don’t make EPUB a REC (at some point), then why are we in the W3C? 
>> This is an excellent question, worthy of much thought. I suppose I should write up my thoughts sooner rather than later...
> I believe that for a standard as important at EPUB, it is not acceptable that the flagship spec is not approved through a formal standardization process.  In my mind, EPUB unquestionably needs to be on the REC track.  The question is: what version of EPUB and when.
> My hope is that this question gets informed by the survey.  Here are some examples:
> 1.  From the survey, an interesting roadmap arises for a new rev of EPUB in the next 3-5 years. 
> In this case I would drive to move EPUB 3.5 to the REC track.  The rationale would be since we have a major new rev; it ought to be on the REC track.
> 2. From the survey, we discover that there is not much to do for EPUB in the next 3-5 years.
> In this case I would drive to move EPUB 3.2 to the REC track.  The rationale is that it is inconceivable that the flagship EPUB standard (i.e. 3.2) should last for a decade without going through formal standardization. 
>  
>>  
>> Dave
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704