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

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

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:10:13 +0200
To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>, 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>, 'Garth Conboy' <garth@google.com>
Cc: 'W3C Publishing Business Group' <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, 'W3C Digital Publishing IG' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ca3487ce-fb84-a1ed-baaf-807ba77217bb@disruptive-innovations.com>
Le 19/04/2017 à 16:21, Bill McCoy a écrit :

> +1 to the renaming of the IG documents.
> 
> It’s a nit but I would recommend naming that captures a bit more
> actively the spirit of the documents, since terms like “reflections”,
> “contemplating”, “deliberations” (not to mention “ruminations”) are
> pretty passive and really don’t connote anything. E.g. I could suggest:
> “Envisioning Web Publications”, or “Motivation and Requirements for Web
> Publications”, or “Vision and Background for Web Publications” or
> something along those lines that would give someone reading the title a
> bit more of a clue as to the content.

I would call them "/dev/null".

As I said in my charter review, I'm not even sure we need these
documents on the REC track in the WG and I'm not even sure 2.5 years
for 4 deliverables currently listed in the Charter is realistic.

I could probably, with big efforts, understand why we have Web
Publications there, because we have this model [1] where we design
generic Web Publications and functionnally derive EPUB from there. Why
we have Package Web Publications - while the W3C has another place
working on Packaging on the Web - is a mystery to me. We should just
adopt what they do and liaise with them or we will end up with a one
liner spec: "a PWP is a WP packaged according to the Packaging-on-the-
Web spec". I also note that since Packaging of Web resources is
chartered by one WG already, we can't charter it in the Publishing WG
if we deal with Web resources ourselves, which we clearly do.

In my opinion, the Deliverables section should be (EPUB4 prose
rewritten by yours truly):

  EPUB 4
    This specification defines the next version of EPUB, a distribution
    and interchange format for digital publications and documents. It
    should generally be a functional superset of EPUB 3.1. Functional
    round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable.

  DPUB-ARIA Module 2.0
    This specification extends the DPUB-ARIA Module 1.0 specification,
    adding terms for a more complete coverage of publication-related
    terms. Its primary input is the full set of terms defined by the
    EPUB 3 Structural Semantics Vocabulary but other, similar
    vocabularies will also be considered.

Period. IG's WP and PWP remain fine as Input Documents (and I note
Ivan agrees they should be Notes).

And that's an already agressive and ambitious plan for 2.5
years only. I'm not sure the weight of the needed Test Suites and
the work to collect Implementation Reports is correctly estimated
by everyone here. Without them, no REC.

[1] https://is.gd/qkd6Lh

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 15:10:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 April 2017 15:10:48 UTC