Re: EPUB and ISO

Decision was already taken yesterday during the JWG7 meeting….Any change to that plan would require the committee to reconvene.

Leonard

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:37 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: EPUB and ISO


2018年5月17日(木) 0:02 Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>>
Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:58 PM

To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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