Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

Makoto-san, thank you for responding.

It does look like they removed the max 6 years on TS – so that is helpful.  However, the longer it goes as a TS the harder it will be every 3 years to keep it alive.

And you are correct that for a dated revision to an existing standard, there is no need to change.   But as I mentioned (and you agreed with), switching from TS->IS would require the large changes.  Also, adding a new standard (saying a part 2 for 3.1, so that both documents are kept) would also require the ISO template and language.

Leonard

From: <eb2mmrt@gmail.com> on behalf of MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:00 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>, "public-publishingbg@w3.org" <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure



2017-05-09 18:33 GMT+09:00 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>:
As a long-time ISO person, let me add a few more key pieces of information to this thread.


1.       An ISO TS has a maximum life of 6 years – after which it MUST either become an IS _OR_ it will be withdrawn.  The 6 years is determined by 2 sets of “3 year systematic reviews”.  Since 30135 is dated 2014, it should be up for systematic review this year.  That would be the perfect time to move from TS->IS.

Actually, a maximum life of 6 years is just a recommendation.  There are no limits.
See "2.9.1 Introduction" in ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 and Consolidated ISO Supplement - 2017 (8th edition)<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iso.org%2Fsites%2Fdirectives%2F2017%2Fconsolidated%2Findex.xhtml&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3fa3b01e350346d4b69108d496c23315%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636299208215632797&sdata=6QErH20LBV4xk%2BzDICaC%2BR0v8H3dijXLVxYehi%2BVzFQ%3D&reserved=0>


2.       Upgrading a TS to an IS is a well defined process, though as noted it would require going through the “full” ISO process.  More importantly, however, it would also mean REPLACING the existing document – so that the current document for 3.0 would no longer be available.  If the goal is to have both currently available, then the process would be to “upgrade” the existing 3.0 to IS AND THEN create a new document/IS that would be 3.1.  (NOTE: you can’t mix and match TS and IS with the same numbering)

Yes.  SC34/JWG7 can request ITTF to keep both IS versions
in the catalog.

3.       Another issue for consideration is that any new document through the standard process (either TS or IS) MUST use the standard ISO template and language.  That basically means a good chunk of the current spec would need to be rewritten and reformatted to ISO standards (eg. Word as the authoring environment, MUST->SHALL, etc. )
If we would like to create an IS, I believe that we are required to use the
standard ISO template and language.  But If we simply revise an existing
International Standard  by adding errata and amendments and publish a
revision, we are not required to use  the standard ISO template and
language.  This is what SC34/WG4 has done several times.

Regards,
Makoto

Hope that helps.  If anyone has additional questions about ISO process, don’t hesistate to ask.

Leonard

From: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org<mailto:bmccoy@w3.org>>
Organization: W3C
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:47 AM
To: 'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>>, "public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>" <public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:47 AM

Dear Makoto, thank you very much for the detailed information.

So for PBG folks, my take is the following

a)       While it would be possible in principle to work with S. Korea to upgrade EPUB 3 from TS (Technical Specification) to IS (International Standard), and in the process could upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1, this would be considerable work and presents some obstacles since some of the dependent W3C specifications normatively referenced by EPUB 3.1 and earlier revisions are not themselves final Recommendations but only Candidates Recommendations or even Working Drafts. With everything else we have on our collective plate I can’t recommend that we pursue it at this time.


b)       As Makoto points out it would be possible to work with S. Korea and SC34 to upgrade the current EPUB 3.0 TS to 3.1 but not through “fast track” but the normal procedure. I don’t know that this would significantly change the effort required for this , mainly to process incoming errata reports, even if the only result is that for “righteous” errata we commit to addressing in a future revision (as IDPF agreed to do for 3.0, and did so in 3.0.1) but it would certainly increase the risk that it would not be successful due to objections and would probably be at least somewhat more hassle overall. I think PBG members should consider, and opine about if not in tomorrow’s call then in the near future, how significant they see the benefits of such an upgrade in terms of for example supporting accessibility mandates specifying EPUB 3. I have not heard anything specific about this and perhaps it could be ‘good enough” for a11y mandates that need an ISO reference to specify TS 30135 with a note, as appropriate, recommending use of EPUB 3.1 as the current version. I don’t think we should necessarily forbid use of EPUB 3.0 particularly as the modular EPUB Accessibility specification element of EPUB 3.1 was designed to apply to EPUB 3.0 as well later (and hopefully future) revisions. But that is just my opinion. If PBG thinks it Is a high priority we could then discuss further with EPUB 3 CG and other stakeholders. But if PbG doesn’t think it is a high priority we probably should table it for now (which might mean forever as far as EPUB 3 family is concerned, although a future EPUB 4 that is a W3C Recommendation could use the W3C PAS process to become a full IS).

--Bill

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com> [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com<mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 8:31 PM
To: public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

Dear colleagues,

I plan to send a sequence of e-mails about this topic.  This first
e-mail is about procedures.  The ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 secretariat
checked the content of this e-mail.

1) ISO/IEC TS 30135

The combination of EPUB 3.0 and FXL has been published as
ISO/IEC Technical Specification 30135-1 to -7.  They were
submitted by Korea as Draft Technical Specifications using
the fast-track procedure.

2) Fast-track procedure

Member bodies (including Korea) are able to submit their national
standards as draft international standards (DISs).  Fast-tracked DISs
are voted only once for acceptance as International Standards.

It is not impossible for Korea to adopt EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 as national
standards and then submit it as a Draft International Standards.

Member bodies were allowed to submit Draft Technical Specifications,
but they are no longer allowed to so due to recent changes to ISO/IEC
directives.  Thus, Korea cannot submit EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 as Draft
Technical Specifications.

3) PAS procedure

PAS submitters (including W3C) are able to submit recommendations as
draft international standards (DISs).  PAS-submitted DISs are voted
only once for acceptance as International Standards.  No existing
versions of EPUB are W3C recommendations.  Thus, W3C is
not allowed to submit EPUB3 as draft international standards.

There has been no PAS process for draft technical specifications.
Thus, W3C is not allowed to submit EPUB3 as draft technical
specifications.

4) Normal procedure

It is possible to use the normal process for revising ISO/IEC 30135 in
sync with EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1.  ODF 1.1 (OASIS standard) was standardized
in ISO/IEC SC34/WG6 in this manner.  Associating Schemas with XML
documents 1.0 (W3C Working Group Note) was also standardized in
ISO/IEC SC34/WG1 in this manner.  Although the normal procedure
requires more than one ballot, it is not so slow as long as no
oppositions are supported by other member bodies.

https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-xml-model-20110811/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2011%2FNOTE-xml-model-20110811%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C75d66267c9774cda2a0308d49675116d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636298876934080670&sdata=c%2F9nJ6BE1kksBzWXo8UCN0gh7%2BYDul%2BTNdUyCvTAP%2Fw%3D&reserved=0>

What is more, SC34 has already made a resolution for using the normal
procedure for revising ISO/IEC TS 30135.

  Resolution 9: Revision of ISO/IEC TS 30135: 2014, Information technology -- Digital
  publishing -- EPUB3 (all parts)

  SC 34 creates sub-projects for a revision of TS 30135 (all parts) and
  assigns them to JWG 7 for development. The revision is to address the
  latest EPUB3 revision (3.0.1), in which parts 2 and 7 are merged. SC
  34 instructs its Secretariat to take the necessary action to obtain
  JTC 1 endorsement in accordance with JTC 1 Supplement 2.1.5.4.

5) Superseding

No matter which process is used for standardizing EPUB 3.0.1 or 3.1 in
ISO/IEC, the current version, ISO/IEC 30135:2014 (EPUB 3.0 and FXL),
will disappear from the ISO/IEC catalog.

It is not completely impossible to have more than one editions in the
ISO/IEC catalog.  In fact, ODF 1.0 (including 1.1) and 1.2 are both
in the catalog as ISO/IEC 26300:2006 and ISO/IEC 26300:2015.  But
this is a special case.  In the case of OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500), only
the latest edition is in the catalog.  Since EPUB 3.0 is an ISO/IEC
Error! Filename not specified.
Technical Specification rather than an International Standard, I think
that there are slim chances.


Regards,

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4 Convenor
Head of Delegation of the Japanese SC34 mirror
Makoto



--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto