Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

Bill,

Yes, ongoing development of EPUB 3 is a very special case.  I
am a bit puzzled by the new process document that does not
say anything about IDPF or EPUB.  Given that, I still think
that it is difficult to sell outputs of the CG to non-IDPF members
of W3C.

But let's focus on the ISO route for EPUB.  I do not support
EPUB 3.1 as ISO IS or TS.  I strongly support EPUB Accessibility
as ISO TS.  I am not against Accessibility 1.0 as a TS, but doing
both 1.0 and 1.1 as TSs will double our work.  I thus prefer to
do 1.1 only at ISO.

Regards,
Makoto

2017-05-10 2:04 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:

> Makoto,
>
>
> There is as you point out a bigger question within W3C about the role of
> full W3C Process leading to W3C Recommendations vs. CG processes which do
> not lead to W3C Recommendations.  There are valid concerns about the
> different nature of IP commitments, the different level of review both by
> W3C Team and W3C membership, lack of any financial support for CG work, etc.
>
>
>
> But ongoing development of EPUB 3 is a very special case and the EPUB 3 CG
> is a special CG with oversight by the also special PBG. It is part and
> parcel of the contractual commitments by W3C to IDPF and its members. And
> there is indirect financial support for this particular CG in light of the
> TPI memberships of former IDPF members.
>
>
>
> So I urge that Publishing@W3C not get ourselves hung up on the more
> general WG vs. CG debate but instead just work to ensure that the results
> of EPUB 3 specifications produced by the EPUB 3 CG and approved by the PBG
> are positioned as no less stable or official than results of IDPF processes
> in the past (and ideally more so) – whether or not endorsed by ISO. Given
> the special case of EPUB 3 ongoing development I don’t see this as posing
> major practical problems.  Relying on ISO “seal of approval” to create an
> imprimatur for EPUB 3 CG-produced specifications is of course an option but
> it sure seems heavyweight to me and is not guaranteed to produce results in
> a timely manner. I would rather work to create sufficient imprimatur
> without any external dependencies much less ones that would require
> multiple per-country votes. But this is just my recommendation, it is up to
> the PBG and EPUB 3 CG to consider the tradeoffs and prioritize the work
> list.
>
>
>
> --Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
> Makoto
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:50 AM
>
> *To:* W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
>
>
>
> If I am not mistaken, there have been some heated discussions
>
> in W3C about the role of community groups in general.
>
>
>
> Community groups are not in the World Wide Web Consortium
>
> Process Document (https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/).
>
> This process document was published only recently but does not
>
> say anything about IDPF or the EPUB 3 Community Group.
>
> Will outputs of the EPUB 3 Community Group have any
>
> official status in W3C?  Certanily, IDPF specs had official
>
> status in IDPF (not in W3C).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-05-10 0:46 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:
>
> It is not correct to say that an EPUB Accessibility 1.1 or anything else
> produced by the W3C EPUB 3 Community Group and approved by the W3C
> Publishing Business Group (such as an EPUB 3.1.1) will “have no official
> status at W3C’ . And, in the interests of promoting ongoing adoption of
> EPUB 3 (and after all we are a very long ways from an EPUB 4 W3C
> Recommendation) I believe it is critical that we treat EPUB 3 (including
> but not limited to EPUB Accessibility) as living specifications. So I
> recommend we don’t use phrases like “no official status”. We can say “not
> developed according to the W3C Process and therefore not a W3C
> Recommendation”. But that is a very different statement.
>
>
>
> Such future EPUB 3 family specifications will not be W3C Recommendations,
> that is true. But IMO we need to emphasize that the EPUB 3 Community Group
> is empowered to publish, with approval of PBG, specifications that have no
> lesser status than IDPF specifications (that were not W3C Recommendations
> either). That is one reason we have the extra step of voting on approval by
> the W3C Publishing Business Group which was a stipulation of the
> combination agreement of IDPF and W3C.
>
>
>
> So I recommend that PBG and EPUB3 CG resist the idea that we need to seek
> ISO TS status for something just because the EPUB 3 CG is not a WG and is
> not producing Recommendations. If we need ISO TS status in order to achieve
> specific a11y mandate(s), great let’s do it. But let’s make sure we know
> what we are specifically going to get by going ISO route that we would not
> get if we didn’t  (and how long and how much effort it will take us to get
> there), to just to do it because we don’t think the EPUB 3 CG + PBG
> imprimatur is sufficient, would seem both a questionable use of scarce
> resources and more importantly to undermine what we should be doing which
> is emphasizing that we have, within W3C itself, a process for ongoing
> development of EPUB 3 family specifications that is no less worthy than
> that of IDPF (and in some ways may be betters, as the EPUB 3 CG can look at
> adopting some W3C best practices such as requiring 2 implementations, test
> suites, etc. before approval).
>
>
>
> --Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
> Makoto
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:59 AM
> *To:* W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <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 <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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto