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

Re: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:52:19 +0200
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Florian Rivoal <florian@vivliostyle.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, public-new-work@w3.org
Message-ID: <5b9512e6-5c52-1e30-cd36-123daf93808a@disruptive-innovations.com>
Le 21/04/2017 à 11:53, Ivan Herman a écrit :

> Daniel, Florian, everyone
> I would hope that these changes form a good basis to resolve the issues around the formal objections, and are acceptable to everyone.

Thank you Ivan. My review of the proposed changes:

1. the Input Documents' list still misses html and CSS! I strongly
   suggest comparing the list and the Normative and Informative
   References of EPUB 3.1. The potential allowance of non-XML html
   alone (with its namespace issues) makes the html spec a major input
   document.

2. I still wish Input Documents were divided into Normative documents
   (RECs or non-W3C Standard documents) and non-normative ones, thanks.

3. the ETAs for Deliverables seem more "plausible". And as Bill told me,
   the goal is to have "plausible" ETAs in the Charter, even if they're
   eventually not met for various reasons. This WG will have a
   Membership that's not used to our Test Suites, our harness
   environments and tools. The Test Suites for EPUB 4 alone will be a
   *huge* effort. The Implementation Reports too.

4. the change about BG/WG relationship is fine by me, thank you.

5. I still don't think it's a good strategy to keep the possibility
   of having our own Packaging spec; IMHO, a better one would be to
   make the WG, as first-class user, contribute directly to
   Packaging-on-the-Web in a joint effort. Willing to compromise on
   the proposed change, though.

6. I'm still not sure about the second half of last paragraph of the
   Scope section. As I said in my AC review, it seems to me far too
   binding for something that should be decided by the WG's Membership.
   EPUB is at crossroads, and deep technical changes having no
   functional impact, for simpler and better implementations, are
   feasible. I certainly do NOT want to shut that door.

Thanks.

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 09:52:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 24 April 2017 09:52:53 UTC