Re: ISO/IEC standardization of EPUB: Procedure

2017-05-10 2:39 GMT+09:00 Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *MURATA
> Makoto
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:16 AM
> *To:* W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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.
>
>
>
> *This was done in parallel with the combination of IDPF and W3C which was
> not a sure thing until February of this year, so it is not puzzling at all
> to me.*
>

It would be nice if the process document is revised again so that
special status of EPUB is taken into consideration.  Such revision
should make clear what the EPUB CG and Publication BG are allowed
to do.  I can imagine that stretching the rule will lead to confusion and
troubles.

Regards,
Makoto


>
> Given that, I still think
> that it is difficult to sell outputs of the CG to non-IDPF members
> of W3C.
>
>
>
> *I think the biggest need is to sell outputs of the CG to the world as a
> whole specifically those involved in publishing who already depend on EPUB
> 3 (make sure they are confident that it is alive and well) and those who
> have not yet adopted EPUB 3 (get them to adopt rather than wait years for
> an EPUB 4 and meanwhile sticking with PDF or proprietary formats). *
>
>
>
> *Selling outputs of the CG to non-IDPF-legacy participants in W3C – I
> agree it may not be easy because they are almost by definition in a mindset
> that REC track is the only thing that matters in W3C. But neither do I
> think it is necessary. Microsoft shipped EPUB 3 in Edge after the
> combination of IDPF with W3C. But the Microsoft people involved in W3C work
> seem to have little to nothing to do with this. And if it is well-received
> then integration of EPUB 3 in other browsers may happen too (after all
> Apple and Google already deliver EPUB reading systems). That EPUB 3 was not
> a W3C REC I think is not even a rounding error on the business decision of
> browser vendors to support or not. After all, every browser/OS now supports
> PDF and it is not a W3C REC either (and I don’t believe that PDF being an
> ISO standard had any real bearing on browser vendors decisions to support,
> other than potentially indirectly as it meant Adobe was giving up some
> unilateral control, at least in theory).*
>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto