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

Daniel – We have already agreed on the model of WP->PWP->EPUB, as this enables the development of alternative packaging models.  For example, EPUB 4 may not want to use the packaging model currently underway in W3C BUT we still want EPUB 4 to be a valid PWP.  I see no reason to undo that decision.


On 4/19/17, 11:10 AM, "Daniel Glazman" <> wrote:

    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.


Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 15:49:33 UTC