Meeting minutes
EPUB to ISO
Wendy Reid: some background ISO has a version of epub, 3.0.1 from 2014
… many countries use ISO as a standard. We have long talked about bringing the W3C version to ISO through the PAS process
… they convert it to the ISO format
… this takes less time than the usual process
… we have wanted to do this for a while but held off because of things happening in Europe
… but we now can go ahead
… the question is down to timing
… we can take 3.3 to ISO now, but we are months away from having epub 3.4
… which has features like scroll that people will find useful
… is it worth us waiting until EPUB 3.4 spec gets to CR to start to go to ISO
Ivan Herman: we need clarity about this, but I understand that we can go to ISO without jeopardizing the European accessibility act
Rigo Wenning: the commission wants to reference the EPUB specifcations in the new framework
… of how EPUB is made in Europe and the accessibility requirements
… there is no issue here to go to ISO. It may influence how Europeans will reference this issue down stream
… for the moment there is no issue holding it up
… about 3.4 I don;t know if ISO will have remarks on the specification
… but we will need to provide it in a format that is acceptable to ISO
… the most important thing is to get a wg agreement to move forward
Avneesh Singh: The main concern that held us back was: if EPUB Accessibility becomes the ISO standard, will the European union accept it without fragmentation or changes?
Rigo Wenning: the commission initially wanted to fill the gaps of the EU accessibility directive
… in their new legal framework there are some generalities
… we could do this by harmonized standards, which is a specific proceedure
… we would make a specifaction by this specific proceedure, and requires a final vote
… this can be referenced as filling in the details
… if you conform to this standard there is an assumption of conformity
… you are presumed to be conformant, the burder of proof is on an accuser not the publisher
… in the absence of a harmonized norm, the EU can select a specification
… to complicate it further, if something exists as a ISO standard,
… EU has an agreement with ISO, if something is an iso specification
… and there is no harmonized norm, they should largely follow ISO
… there was a concern that we would adopt an old specification
… there is now a possibility to reference the latest specification in time for legislation
… that is why we decided to overcome the outdated versions
… and not interfere with the EU legislature
… they can then give an EU number to the ISO legislation
Matt Garrish: this makes me think we should wait for 3.4 because of differences in the metadata
Ivan Herman: one thing worries me, @Rigo Wenning you were referring to timing issues and we need to move quickly
<Murata Makoto> I have no problems in waiting for 3.4 and 1.2.
Ivan Herman: if we aim to use 3.4, what is the most pessimistic timing to get and ISO standard, and is that in time for the
… EU parlement?
… 3.4 is near CR, but we are considering rechartering for at least a few months
… so we may not see a CR before september or october
… is a CR OK for going to ISO?
… will the EU get impatient?
Rigo Wenning: maybe the wg should discuss going to 3.5 with rechartering
… I think it should be 3.4, but we could get into an infinite loop of adding features
… it takes about 18 months
… if you can iron our little things informally it can go quicker
… I have no information about EU plans, but I think they are aiming
… to do something by 2027
… in the meantime they can always use an implementation act to refer to the w3c rec directly
… but prefer to have the ISO number before they have the implementation act ready
<Rigo Wenning> need to establish a formal liaison with SC 34
Francis Cave: it is helpful that w3c is apply for liaison status with SC34
… I hope to see no delay
Avneesh Singhsingh: the people who were not able to join us can review the minutes
… Rigo Wenning has done a good job explaining the situation
… if ISO has 1.1 going out and then 1.2 soon after, it will cause confusion
<Murata Makoto> +1
Avneesh Singhsingh: so it is better to wait for 3.4
… regarding rechartering, I see more advancement in media coming
… media overlays requires incubation and should not be rushed
… then we can come up with the best recommendations for the spec
Murata Makoto: I have no problems waiting for 3.4 and EPUB Accessibility 1.2
… referring to the WCAG 2.2 DIS ballot closing in July, ISO approval may be achievable within about a year based on recent experience
Ivan Herman: to smooth the two processes, what we call CR in W3C document is that the wg thinks the document is correct and final
<Murata Makoto> -1
Ivan Herman: and only awaits required implementation
… giving the CR version to ISO could speed up the project, since no technical things will change
Murata Makoto: there are so many candidate recommendations that don't become final even years later
Wendy Reid: do we have to wait for 3.4 to be REC to start the process?
Murata Makoto: yes
Wendy Reid: to clarify, we will be having a recharting discussion
… we should not try to rush in last minute changes but
… do a thorough consideration with all the stakeholders
… it is starting to sound like 3.5
… since we cannot initiate PASS until REC,
… we can say in rechartering, that when we go to 3.5, we can add to our charter
… that we address any concerns that come up in the ISO process
… then we are not just sitting and waiting on feedback
George Kerscher: Murata Makoto's concern about the CR sitting for a long time
… we have many implementations of EPUB and I do not anticipate major delays
… turning over the CR to ISO for initial comments and preparing documents
… that could be officially submitted when 3.4 becomes
… REC could speed up the process
… media overlays could benefit from a broader conversation and move into 3.5
<Murata Makoto> +1
George Kerscher: I advocate for going with 3.4
Francis Cave: I work on the ODF technical team at OASIS
<Murata Makoto> In the case of ISO/IEC EPUB 3.0.1, there were no changes.
Francis Cave: our procedure with comments is that if technical changes are required,
… we agree to make those changes in a future edition
… for small editorial changes we publish an errata
… we are trying to speed up our process and are several edtions ahead of ISO
Ivan Herman: I agree with George Kerscher and respectfully disagree with Murata Makoto's position on CRs
… in my experience it is rare that CRs hang around for years, it is certainly not the norm
… I usually see the CR going to REC very quickly
… submitting the CR will let us address and problems more quickly
… about our 3 documents, the author, RS and Accessibility documents
… what do we do about [missedthis]
Wendy Reid: is it possible to submit to push to the pass process in CR
Matt Garrish: I can answer how we can go to PAS in CR because our document might change
… can we aks the ISO folks to review the CR like a horizontal review?
Murata Makoto: I strongly believe we can't submit a CR, PAS submissions require a complete document
Francis Cave: if technical changes occur after a ballot, the ISO process starts over
Ivan Herman: can we do an informal review?
Francis Cave: you will soon have the status that will let you ask for this review
Rigo Wenning: I think for the ISO process, it is formal. We need the final format state of the document
<Murata Makoto> The liaison status is just around the corner, I believe.
Rigo Wenning: we will try to establish ASAP a liaison that will allow submission of a document in any state to get comments
… there is a certain reluctance to make comments after this
… it would be ideal to start the liaison informal stream, the we can still feed in some comments, and when
… we have the final REC step we have all this in place
<Murata Makoto> Recent ballot in SC34
<Murata Makoto> SC 34 N 3303
<Murata Makoto> Request from World Wide Web Consortium, Inc. (W3C) to Establish a Category A Liaison with JTC 1/SC 34
Rigo Wenning: then ISO standard takes one year, if we do otherwise it may take longer
Murata Makoto: there was a vote about establishing a liaison with this group,
… I believe it was approved
Yong-sang Cho: If the ISO can start reviewing the CR, it will let countries prepare for the formal ballot
… if nations/bodies can see the CR they may provide more formal comments from a national perspective
… this informal process could be an important signal
Francis Cave: a document was circulated for comment, due in a month
… that would establish a liaison with this group
Ivan Herman: what is our next action?
Wendy Reid: we are waiting for confirmation of liaison status
… with will line up pretty well with CR
… though there is some unknowns about going to ISO with the CR
… what makes sense, is that as soon as we can we submit what we have for comments
<Murata Makoto> +1 to everything Wendy said
Wendy Reid: and keep working toward rec
… we could get as much as 3 months of feedback
… and fix any errata and add technical issues to 3.5 charter
<Murata Makoto> +1
Francis
Francis Cave: we have a deadline of June 16th can we get a statement in time?
… we expect a response to the liaison question in late May
<Murata Makoto> +1
<Wendy Reid> PROPOSED: Once the liaison with SC34 is established, we will submit EPUB 3.4, EPUB Reading Systems 3.4, and EPUB Accessibility 1.2 as drafts for their review.
<Matt Garrish> +1
<George Kerscher> +1
<Susan Neuhaus> +1
<Shinya Takami> +1
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Toshiaki Koike> +1
<Laurent Le Meur> +1
<Masakazu Kitahara> +1
<Wendy Reid> +1
<Brady Duga> +1
Avneesh Singhsingh: should we make this resolution when the European members are available?
Wendy Reid: I won't officially resolve this and will solicit their feedback in the minutes email
<Murata Makoto> +1
<Avneesh SinghSingh> do we need rec resolution? This is governed by process!
<Wendy Reid> PROPOSED: We will submit EPUB 3.4, EPUB Reading Systems 3.4, and EPUB Accessibility 1.2 to ISO as part of the PAS process when all documents reach recommendation status.
<George Kerscher> +1
<Matt Garrish> +1
<Wendy Reid> +1
<Susan Neuhaus> +1
<Shinya Takami> +1
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Brady Duga> +1
<Toshiaki Koike> +1
<Masakazu Kitahara> +1
<Laurent Le Meur> +1
Ivan Herman: this is the same as the first resolution, we will not close it and will ask for input
Avneesh Singhsingh: the process of going to ISO is using the PAS process which requires the REC level. why do we need a resolution for that?
Rigo Wenning: there is the w3c process, the chairs perogative to steer the wg, then there is the liaison with ISO, and then there is a very formal proceedure for public submission
… you have made internal W3C decisions with the larger intent to prepare for a submission process
<Murata Makoto> I also think that we do need this resolution.
Rigo Wenning: we haven't triggered it yet
… this resolution is internal to the wg
… we would never go to ISO without the whole process being in place