Re: EPUB Rec track (Was Re: [minutes] 2019-10-01)

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:43 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> First, I apologize for missing the recent EPUB 3.2 REC track
> discussions.  In Fukuoka I was in too many places at once.  And I was on
> holiday for yesterday's BG meeting.
>
> I wanted to add one element to the discussion, which I did not see in
> the Pros/Cons document [1].  This is the element of roadmap which I view
> as an essential element of the REC track discussion. At the moment the
> discussion [1] seems focused on the current spec alone, whereas I
> believe that the REC track decision is heavily dependent on roadmap.
> Let me explain what I mean with three scenarios.
>
> 1. Two years ago, the publishing community thought that the roadmap of
> EPUB was EPUB 4.0, a derivative of the work on Web Publications.  At
> that time, I (and I think everyone else), was extremely comfortable with
> doing EPUB maintenance in a Community Group.  After all, in short order
> there would be (the charter thought) a vastly improved EPUB 4.0.  Why
> take EPUB 3.2 on the REC track?  (This is not the current scenario that
> anyone is working on.)
>
> 2. Let's assume that we collectively believe that there are additional
> meaningful enhancements for EPUB that we expect to deliver in the next
> three years.  These could be sourced from several directions: (a)
> Sequential arts (manga) requirements, (b) some level of interop with
> Kindle, (c) bringing in some of the audiobooks content into the core
> EPUB spec, (d) bringing in some early Web Publications content, (e)
> natural evolution of the core EPUB 3.0 spec which was already approved 8
> years ago.
>
> If we believe that in three years there is enough meaningful content for
> an EPUB 3.5, then I would not advocate taking EPUB 3.2 to REC.  I would
> prefer to put our energies into the new function.
>
> 3. Let's assume on the other hand, that we do not believe that there
> will be meaningful enhancements for EPUB that we expect to deliver in
> the next three years.  Then I would have the opposite view.  I would
> have a hard time believing that we want the flagship spec of the
> publishing community to be out there for so many years: with less formal
> recognition, less testing, less horizontal review, less patent
> protection.   If that were the case, then I would support taking EPUB
> 3.2 on the REC track immediately.
>
> Choosing between scenarios 2 and 3 requires coming to consensus on our
> roadmap.  I don't think that this work is done or is being worked on.
> But I think this is an appropriate task for the Publishing Business Group.
>

Hi Jeff,

Shanah tovah!

The EPUB 3 CG is working on that road map for EPUB 3.X, which in addition
to the goals you stated above also hopes to reduce the distance between
EPUB and the rest of the OWP. The road map is being incorporated into a
draft charter for the CG, which could perhaps be repurposed as a WG charter
if the EPUB 3 CG *and* the PBG agree. I'll be sending out a draft in the
next day or two; this will be discussed by the EPUB 3 CG on Thursday,
October 10 at 16UTC.

Thanks,

Dave