- From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:59:17 +0900
- To: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALvn5EA0+s8Ax8VHDjKh-1b=p7X-ycnfCCHPU3uuoWPJEj3Riw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-05-09 22:53 GMT+09:00 Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>: > 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. > But publishing both 1.0 and 1.1 as ISO/IEC TSs will require more work than publishing 1.1 only. Since 1.0 is an IDPF recommended spec and is part of 3.1, I do not see strong reasons to publish it as an ISO/IEC TS. But 1.1 will have no official status at W3C, and thus publishing 1.1 as an ISO/IEC TS is much more important. Regards, Makoto > 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. >> >> >> >> 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 > -- Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake Makoto
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 13:59:55 UTC