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 18:01:05 +0200
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, 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: <b3574ec3-0557-b90b-0484-878a20d0bb41@disruptive-innovations.com>
Le 19/04/2017 à 17:48, Leonard Rosenthol a écrit :

> Daniel – We have already agreed on the model of WP->PWP->EPUB, as this enables the development of alternative packaging models.

No, sorry, we have not. The BG has agreed on that to shape its
proposal to the W3C Membership. The W3C Membership hasn't yet and this
is what this Charter Review is all about.

Process question: since EPUB 4 will be the only "application" of (P)WP
at the end of the proposed Charter, how do you propose to have a Test
Suite and Implementation Reports for that spec? Can it even meet the
success criteria outlined in Section 2.3 ? In other words, can it be
on the REC track or is it another Note ?

> 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.

Ah, right, the « The definition of packaging for Packaged Web
Publications should consider this format as (one of) its standard
format(s) » from Section 2.1. Well. Most reading systems don't
correctly implement the single packaging format they have to deal
with at this time so multiple ones...

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 16:01:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 April 2017 16:01:41 UTC