- From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 19:23:10 +0530
- To: "MURATA Makoto" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "W3C Publishing Business Group" <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E0C1D8676C3141B4B97ABC4E1E319397@AvneeshHP840>
Hi Makoto and Bill,
The proposal for accessibility spec version 1.1 is for continuing work in community group.
Regarding ISO, it is not compulsory to wait for accessibility spec version 1.1, we can submit version 1.0 also.
It depends on the which one is more practical. Version 1.1 will be incremental release, so it will not change fundamental approach of 1.0.
With regards
Avneesh
From: MURATA Makoto
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 19:14
To: W3C Publishing Business Group
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
Bill,
2017-05-09 22:18 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:
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.
This is because of the fast-tracking procedure. If you use that procedure,
you do not have to follow the ISO/IEC directives for editorial issues.
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 Ivan pointed out, accessibility 1.1 as a WG note is not possible, unless
it is in the charter of the Publication WG. The CG can only create
a CG report.
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.
Avneesh and Geroge are proposing EPUB Accessibility 1.1. Not 1.0.
I would like to hear from them about 1.0 vs. 1.1.
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.
If a New Work Item Proposal can be made in this June and the CG can develop
EPUB accessibility 1.1 in a timely manner, I do not see any reasons for such
delay. Less than a year is needed after the Draft Technical Spec is developed
and sent out for a ballot.
Regards,
Makoto
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] 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.
2.. 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/
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
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 13:53:50 UTC