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

And... jumping the gun...

Given your two scenarios, Jeff, I'd tend to lean toward #2.  :-)

Best,
   Garth


On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:07 PM Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>