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

Re 2: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:04:23 +0200
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@vivliostyle.com>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, public-new-work@w3.org
Message-Id: <377BA4FC-9276-431A-8642-59D5E02EE77D@w3.org>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Daniel,

I have just realized that I may have misunderstood what you said about rec track input documents. Do you mean to separate those documents that are either recs or are on rec-track by another WG from those that are either notes or drafts for notes? If that is what you mean, then I agree that would be helpful and I am happy doing it (tomorrow...)

Cheers

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 24 Apr 2017, at 11:52, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 19:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 24 April 2017 19:04:42 UTC