search

w3c / strategy

team-strat, on GitHub, working in public. Current state: DRAFT
158 stars 47 forks source link

[wg/pm] Publishing Maintenance Working Group Recharter #481

Open iherman opened 1 month ago

iherman commented 1 month ago

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

What kind of charter is this?

Communities suggested for outreach

(Digital) publishing in general, including

Known or potential areas of concern

The main concern is to have clear backing from publishers (we have many of the Reading System providers on board, like Apple, Google, Kobo/Rakuten, or EDRLab)

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised?

Anything else we should think about as we review?

Under the current Working Group charter (expiring in June '25) the Group is not authorized to publish new versions of the Recommendation with class 4 changes. The objective of the new charter is to explicitly list features that were discussed/incubated in the Publishing Maintenance Working Group or elsewhere, and which are ready to be added to EPUB as standard features following the standard Recommendation process.

There are no plans to fundamentally change EPUB 3.

cc: @shiestyle, @wareid, @rickj, @swickr, @BillKasdorf

iherman commented 1 month ago

~For some reason this issue did not appear on the pull-down list of the repo when I tried to add it to the pipeline...~ (Found it...)

simoneonofri commented 3 weeks ago

hi @iherman,

For the security aspect, would it make sense to add the same text you wrote for VCWG for Security maintenance?

Thank you

iherman commented 3 weeks ago

@simoneonofri yes and no 😉...

At first glance, the VCWG example is not directly relevant here: once published as Recommendations, class 4 changes for VC documents are not allowed for them (per the WG's decision). The security issues that you refer to is explicitly allowing class 4 changes as exceptions. The PM case is different, because the charter makes the issues around class 4 exceptions moot, because the charter is for a new version of the EPUB specifications, following the "traditional" WD->CR->PR->Rec route. I.e., in theory, such exception is superfluous.

That being said, the PM charter is setting the scope expectation very tightly (the publishing industry is very averse to change, hence the precaution). As a consequence, it might indeed be a good idea to add an entry to, e.g., the second bullet list in the scope section which makes explicit some incubation work that may or may not end up as part of the Recommendation in this charter round. The item would reuse the same text:

Serious security or privacy issues that arise, requiring changes in a Recommendation

(Note that I have added privacy, because I actually think it has the same issue.)

If you agree, I will raise a new PR soon, but I would prefer to do that if and when https://github.com/w3c/publ-maintenance-wg-charter/pull/44 is merged, because that PR makes a more serious re-write of the scope section and I do not want to create a github merge mess...

@wareid @shiestyle @tjwhalen

simoneonofri commented 2 weeks ago

@iherman thank you for the explanation, approved the PR

himorin commented 2 weeks ago

no comment or request from i18n

npdoty commented 1 week ago

Looks fine from a privacy perspective. I don't know that the maintenance group can address all the privacy-relevant issues with ePubs, but horizontal review as normal seems fine and the charter does call out security and privacy fixes as within scope.

ruoxiran commented 1 week ago

APA is OK with this charter.

iherman commented 1 week ago

For the record the PR mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/481#issuecomment-2441911915 has been raised and merged.