RE: Deep concerns about the future of EPUB

Hi Daniel, 

It is not clear that the market was not ready to digest the capabilities of EPUB 3.1, just that the version mismatch with the canonical validator SW turned out to be a blocker. I am hearing in fact the opposite, that major vendors with proprietary systems that ingest EPUB 3 are seeking new capabilities beyond what is defined in EPUB 3.0.1/3.1. So we may need more capabilities in the proposed EPUB 3.0.2 to satisfy industry requirements, and/or to work on an EPUB 3.0.3 afterwards.

Regarding the Publishing WG charter: it was reviewed and approved in June by the Members and the Director. I don't see the point in revisiting decisions already made unless there is some overwhelming new evidence - which the situation with EPUB 3.1, which was already clear many months ago, is not . And given the slower pace of work in WGs it is likely in any case that it will take several years (at a minimum) before the results of a PWP/EPUB4 are ready for industry use, so even if you are correct that the market isn't yet fully ripe for an EPUB 4 (and I personally share your perspective about that), starting work now is arguably necessary so as to have it when the market is ready. 

Regarding conformance of EPUB 3.x with W3C WG exit criteria: it is of course possible for a CG to agree on whatever processes it wants and some of the W3C WG exit criteria - such as requiring at least 2 implementations of each feature - seem appropriate to me and I believe have been discussed to some extent in the CG. I don't know that I agree with your implication in your original email that the EPUB WG at IDPF erred in a major way in not being strict about this for EPUB 3.1 as arguably the WG was conservative: for example, the EPUB Multiple Renditions specification was deemed insufficiently mature to incorporate into EPUB 3.1 baseline, despite having multiple implementations and thus meeting in principle that W3C exit criterion. 

Regarding test suites, the EPUB 3 CG could and arguably should go further here too, for sure, but OTOH there seems to be some perception that in certain W3C WG's demands for a comprehensive test suites "ad absurdum" have been (ab)used to block progress... there needs to be a balance between comprehensive tests and adequate rate of progress and there is a diminishing rate of return on investment in test suites. 

As I see it, it's up to consensus of the EPUB 3 CG on how to proceed on these matters, without the presumption that the one-size-fits-all model of W3C WG is appropriate in its entirety (as clearly indicated in the CG charter) but certainly with a goal of improving the EPUB 3 standard to meet industry needs, and a bias towards adopting W3C process where that makes sense (as also indicated in the CG charter), So, I urge you to participate actively and constructively in developing that CG consensus rather than simply emailing unsupported criticisms and demands for external interventions and attempting to ex post facto re-lawyer charters that have already been developed and approved by the stakeholders and W3C. Yes, these charters may not be entirely to your liking, but it's time to "disagree and commit" - to making EPUB 3 better, which is goal we both share.

--Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 2:23 AM
To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>; public-publishingbg@w3.org
Cc: 'Jeff Jaffe' <jeff@w3.org>; 'Tim Berners-Lee' <timbl@w3.org>; eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp
Subject: Re: Deep concerns about the future of EPUB

Le 26/12/2017 à 19:02, Bill McCoy a écrit :

> That being said I think you're engaging in a logical fallacy by claiming that a single mistake by the IDPF EPUB WG over a year ago implies that we must now radically rethink the way W3C Publishing@W3C groups are structured in general, as well as how ongoing development of EPUB 3 will be handled specifically.

I respectfully disagree 100%. If the market is already unable to digest
3.1 six years after the release of 3.0, when will it be able to digest 4.0, Web Publications, Portable Web Publications and more? Given the EPUB 3 situation, any investment now on WP, PWP, EPUB4 is too early and too expensive. The EPUB market is just unable to absorb a new spec every three years. Our whole model is flawed.

I suggest we take that chartered time to make a 3.x version conform to regular W3C exit criteria, with a test suite and real implementation reports, and reach W3C REC (instead of "Recommended Specification" IDPF
designation) instead of diving into useless expensive blue-sky dreams.

*THAT* would be *immensely* useful to *everyone*.

Let me repeat myself on one important point: backwards-compatibility requirements of EPUB increase as the EPUB market increase. They will become mandatory soon. An ebook is an ebook is an ebook. Nobody wants to maintain several technical versions of the same ebook for a given technology, nobody wants to update (at a cost) ebooks published eons ago that should just work, nobody wants to leave legacy reading systems unattended because it could kill the ecosystem, and we're not even able to get rid of our ugliest design choices any more. Hence my
conclusion: EPUB is a dead end. A technological disruption will happen, it's not a question of "if" any more but only a question of "when".

</Daniel>

Received on Wednesday, 27 December 2017 18:39:23 UTC