W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publishingbg@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Some new issues raised on the charter

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:19:12 +0200
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Rick Johnson <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>
Message-Id: <93BE1390-F966-47E9-BA85-DEA63167CFA7@w3.org>
To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>

> On 11 Apr 2017, at 16:16, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:58 AM
> To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>
> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>; W3C Publishing
> Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>; Garth Conboy
> <garth@google.com>; Rick Johnson <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>
> Subject: Re: Some new issues raised on the charter
> 
> 
>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 15:35, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> In EPUB 3 the lack of explicit definition of the runtime security
>> model had been noted as an infelicity and IDPF folks had been
>> following the work in the W3C System Applications WG [1] in particular
>> the draft of Web Applications Runtime and Security Model [2], since
>> there was felt to be significant overlap between security issues in
>> so-called "system applications" (with client-side resources and
>> potentially offline) and portable publications.  However, the Systems
>> Applications WG was disbanded and its specs in my understanding aren't
>> proceeding, which may be a cautionary note with how much the new WG wants
> to tackle in this area.
>> Nevertheless, something in the proposed charter that notes more
>> clearly that addressing rigorously defining the security model is in
>> scope  for the WG could be useful and perhaps a better way to address
>> Google's concern than trying to precisely define things like origin in
>> the WG charter itself (since the charter is not the place to specify
> solutions).
> 
> We have to be careful, though. The response may be (and should be, actually)
> that the WG should avoid re-inventing things by itself and should reuse
> whatever is being defined elsewhere on the subject. In this sense, the issue
> raised in #63, ie, adding an explicit liaison to the Web App Security WG, is
> indeed important.
> 
> Do you think that this is not enough?
> 
> Bill: I agree that adding explicit liaison to the Web App Security WG is
> important and it may be sufficient. But  I'm not sure whether
> offline/packaged content use cases are presently in scope for the Web App
> Security WG (given demise of work on "system applications") and I would not
> like to have that end up a blocker for if it was deemed out of scope for our
> WG to define our own security model if there is nothing to reuse.

I do not think it is out of scope. We clearly say that security is to be solved; at this point I believe this is all we need…

Ivan




> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> 
>> --Bill
>> 
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/runtime/
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:56 AM
>> To: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>; W3C
>> Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>> Cc: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>; Rick Johnson
>> <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>
>> Subject: Re: Some new issues raised on the charter
>> Importance: High
>> 
>> I have re-read issue 61, and I have put in a proposal for resolution
>> to that one, too.
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 08:23, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Three new issues have been raised on the charter last night (coming
>>> from
>> Google). We have to handle those ASAP.
>>> 
>>> I have commented and proposed a solution for two out of three, namely
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/62
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/63
>>> 
>>> I have not commented on
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/61
>>> 
>>> because I would like a security expert to answer that question.
>> Unfortunately, Leonard is unavailable this week, we should try to
>> settle that without him around.
>>> 
>>> I do not think any of those issues are hugely complex, and can be
>>> handled
>> (I hope) with editorial changes, but they have to be treated nevertheless.
>> Please, look at these.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704


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





Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 15:19:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 11 April 2017 15:19:27 UTC