- From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 07:37:00 +0200
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALvn5ECHk61CU137FFwjSBMvVPq6oDKVzwtiqegREVRsVpVrgA@mail.gmail.com>
2018年5月17日(木) 0:02 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>: > Makoto-san, the problem is that EPUB 3.0 is past-due to go through > “systematic review” and so 3.0.1 is being considered the “upgrading” of the > TS to an IS. As such, it can’t go through Fast Track since it’s an upgrade > and not a new standard. And if we don’t do something as an IS, using the > normal track, then 3.0 will be cancelled/removed (as a TS has a limited > life span). > > Leonard, Will see. I will cotact the SC34 secretariat again. Please do not make any decisions in JWG7 other than not publishing TSs. Regards, Makoto > > > So from your message and Luc’s, it would seem that the direction forward > would be to develop 3.2 as an ISO international standard to replace > 3.0…with the pros & cons as discussed in your GDoc… > > > > Leonard > > > > *From: *MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> > *Date: *Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:58 PM > > > *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > *Cc: *W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org> > *Subject: *Re: EPUB and ISO > > Leonard, > > > > I spoke with the secretariat of SC34 several times about this topic. If > Korea submits 3.0.1 as fast tracked DISs, no rewriting is required. The > interpretation of the secretariat matters in JTC1. It is the only > authoritative interpretation. > > > > 2018年5月16日(水) 15:55 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>: > > I am sitting in the JWG7 meeting in Lisbon discussing moving EPUB 3.0.1 > forward as an ISO IS (international standard) as requested by this group > (and others). After reviewing tdirectives, we have all agreed that not > only **MUST** the document go forward as an IS (fast -due to the current > TS having expired!), but in order to do so it **MUST** be reformatted to > ISO specs. > > > > I know that this group felt strongly that if that was required, that > perhaps the work should take place with 3.1 instead of 3.0.1. is that > still the case? Can I speak to the committee on behalf of the BG (since I > am a member of the BG)? > > > > We should absolutely completely forget 3.1. The successor of 3.0 is > 3.2, as agreed in the PBG. > > > > Regards, > > Makoto > > Also, even if ISO were to move 3.0.1 forward, there are no resources > available to do the necessary reformatting – which is also blocking things. > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > -- Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake Makoto
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 05:37:39 UTC