Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

2017-05-09 22:33 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:

> Leonard, yes I understand “fast track” is not available. But it was my
> impression that, since W3C cannot submit non-REC via PAS, that the
> standardization process (whether for update to TS 30135 or separate TS for
> EPUB Accessibility)  would still require someone to adopt as national
> standard and then submit, the difference being that it would then require
> two votes etc.  But perhaps this was not a correct assumption on my part,
> and I hope Makoto or someone else who is involved with ISO can explain the
> specific steps that would be necessary.
>

Let's assume that we have to use the normal process
for EPUB accessibility at ISO/IEC.

Then, we have to begin with  a NWIP (New Work Item Proposal).  Member
bodies (basically, countries) or JWG7. can submit NWIPs.  W3C cannot.
Individual experts cannot.  NWIPs have to be approved by a ballot.  Then,
we have to create Draft Technical Specifications.  Somebody in JWG7
has to become a project editor.  Then, JWG7 proposes its parent committees
(more than one, unfortunately) to start a DTS ballot.  My plan is to
discuss the NWIP for 1.1 in the upcoming JWG7 meeting in June and start
a NWIP ballot immediately after the meeting.

Regards,
Makoto



>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:25 AM
> *To:* Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>; 'MURATA Makoto' <
> eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>; 'W3C Publishing Business Group' <
> public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>
> *Cc:* 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
>
>
>
> Bill – See Makoto’s earlier message under “Fast Track”.   To quote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> So the reason that S.Korea can’t do it with EPUB Accessibility is that (a)
> it’s not an S.Korean standard and (b) the ISO rules changed.
>
>
>
>
>
> As for your timing and order of operations – I’ll let you folks work that
> out…
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> *From: *Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>
> *Organization: *W3C
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:18 PM
> *To: *'MURATA Makoto' <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, 'W3C Publishing
> Business Group' <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Cc: *'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *RE: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
> *Resent-From: *<public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:19 PM
>
>
>
> Makoto,
>
>
>
> If we can standardize only EPUB Accessibility as ISO TS more conveniently
> this seems like a good option to consider.
>
>
>
> But can you explain why for a TS it is necessary or desirable that we edit
> anything to use ISO terminology such as “SHALL”? For EPUB TS 30135 no such
> edits were done, the IDPF specifications were used as-is with no
> reformatting.
>
>
>
> As well, I’m not sure why publication as a WG note would necessarily be
> required or desirable, if we were to standardize EPUB Accessibility 1.0. As
> we can’t use the W3C PAS process (since not Recommendation) so we would be
> relying on S. Korea (or another country) to submit on our behalf. But, it
> could be existing IDPF EPUB Accessibility 1.0 that is submitted, consistent
> with existing TS 30135. Unless the expectation is to standardize a future
> revision such as an EPUB Accessibility 1.1, in that case I understand your
> recommendation.  But since the standard procedure will take some time we
> should consider whether, if we wait until EPUB Accessibility is revised,
> what will be the total elapsed time until we have a TS. It could end up,
> perhaps, desirable to start with EPUB Accessibility 1.0 even if by the time
> it’s a TS it will be revised, just as was the case with EPUB TS. And after
> all EPUB Accessibility is designed to be a living document – if we start
> the TS process with a 1.1 revision then who knows, we may have a 1.2 before
> it is done. So if TS for EPUB Accessibility is a good idea, I don’t’ see
> why not a good idea to start right now, without waiting for revision or for
> any publication by W3C.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com <eb2mmrt@gmail.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *MURATA Makoto
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:33 AM
> *To:* W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Cc:* Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
>
>
>
> Leonard,
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-05-09 19:54 GMT+09:00 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>:
>
> So how would you, Makoto, suggest moving the EPUB Accessibility spec into
> ISO?
>
>
>
> Since it’s not a national standard anywhere, you can’t use Fast Track.
> And not being a W3C Rec, it can’t be PAS.  So that leaves standard process,
> AFAICT.  Yes?
>
>
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> So then someone would need to take on the work to reformat and revise the
> document to ISO requirements and then take it through the process.  It’s
> also then not clear if JTC1 SC34 is the right place to do that work, since
> I don’t believe that any accessibility experts are in that group.
>
>
>
> I am willing to help in SC34/JWG7.   Basically, I am hoping that (1)
> accessibility
>
> folks write a CG report and publish it at W3C, (2)  that CG report
>
> uses the ISO terminology (e.g., SHALL).  I can then do the rest of
>
> editorial and procedural works in JWG7.
>
>
>
> I am not an A11Y expert, but I am sure that all accessibility folks in
> Japan
>
> are willing to help me.  I am also fairly confident that Keio Advanced
>
> Publishing Lab and Japanese publishers support me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
>
>
> (I do support taking the doc to ISO – just trying to help with the
> logistics)
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> *From: *Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:34 PM
> *To: *MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, W3C Publishing Business
> Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
> *Resent-From: *<public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:35 PM
>
>
>
> I would like to comment only on EPUB accessibility specification, as ISO
> work for EPUB 3.1 is an issue to be discussed by the implementers.
>
> Our recommendation of moving EPUB accessibility specification forward in
> CG was based onISO standardization because a document developed by CG is
> not valued as much as the Rec Track deliverables. And accessibility
> documents need to have higher weight due to various reasons like legal
> mandates.
>
> ISO standardization will provide the required weight to EPUB accessibility
> specifications.
>
>
>
>
>
> With regards
>
>
>
> Avneesh
>
> *From:* MURATA Makoto
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 15:45
>
> *To:* W3C Publishing Business Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
>
>
> I do not support the revision of TS for 3.1.  I do not support
>
> the upgrade of TS to IS for 3.1 either.  But I am very interested
>
> in creating an ISO/IEC Technical Specification for EPUB
>
> Accessibility 1.1.  This work should not take much time but it
>
> provides real benefits, since EPUB Accessibility 1.1 at W3C
>
> is neither a recommendation nor a .note but is merely a
>
> CG report (thanks, Ivan).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
> -
>
>
>
> 2017-05-09 9:47 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:
>
> Dear Makoto, thank you very much for the detailed information.
>
>
> So for PBG folks, my take is the following
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
> Makoto
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 7, 2017 8:31 PM
> *To:* 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%7Cfd3605a9a378432ab81808d496c72c36%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636299229567114489&sdata=Lx1JRAxtMZ8BujuKcwnnV2P0kfLua5xcTbe4GmUwC3U%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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto