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

Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:52:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CADExNBOq0_gFZcuz63s-rqzW_OOKxjahX+KK347-hFOx6JmHbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: public-publishingbg@w3.org, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Morning Daniel,

A few comments in line...

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> Le 19/04/2017 à 00:05, Garth Conboy a écrit :
>
> ...
>
> In any case, WP and PWP *are* « an initial draft of a Rec or Note or
> other output document that would be produced by the Publishing Working
> Group » exactly *because* of Section 3.1. According to your message,
> they should not be listed there at all. This is deeply confusing.
>
> Are you saying that WP/PWP *as they exist now in the DPUB IG*,
> and WP/PWP in the Publishing WG's Charter are totally different beasts?
> They don't appear different *at all*, reading the prose in 3.1.
>

I guess I'd say "yes -- completely different beasts."  More below...


>
> If yes, it's so completely unclear in the Charter this alone deserves
> to send the Charter back for (deep) clarification. If no, then I am
> totally lost by your message above, sorry...
>
Corollary: if they are different, I would strongly recommend different
names and acronyms; too confusing.


I don't have strong objections to renaming the "input document" from "Web
Publications" to "Ruminations on Web Publications" or some such -- it's
clearly not ever gonna be spec-ish, at the most, a Note from the likely
soon to be wound down IG.

But, I guess I don't completely grok the argument here. :-)  In the draft
Publishing WG charter DPUB IG's document appears as part of the list of
input documents, with the following description (see section 2.1):

[[[
Web Publications for the Open Web Platform <https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/>.
This document summarizes the technical deliberations on the subject by the
DPUB Interest Group and *provides possible technical avenues* for the final
specifications.
]]]

(emphasis mine.) In my view, this makes it clear that the upcoming FPWD is
*not* the DPUB IG document (or even based on it). That is the only place,
as far as I can see, where the DPUB IG's PWP document is explicitly
mentioned in the Draft Charter.

We could, as you suggest in your other mail, decide to find another name
for the input document or deliverables but we all know that such discussion
could lead to a long bike-shedding match -- I fear that.  Instead, if
necessary, we can add to the charter something making it clear that the WG
has the possibility (as all WG-s have by default) to change the terms used
in the deliverables and/or completely ignore the input documents, if that
makes things clearer.

Best,
   Garth
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:52:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:52:45 UTC