Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 25, 2019. It is now read-only.

Motivate need for EPUB 4 in the charter #27

Closed
whmccoy opened this issue Mar 13, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Motivate need for EPUB 4 in the charter #27

whmccoy opened this issue Mar 13, 2017 · 3 comments
Labels
BG Comment

Comments

@whmccoy
Copy link

whmccoy commented Mar 13, 2017

It has been observed that the draft charter focuses on the motivation for Web Publicaitons and doesn't explicitly motivate why we need an EPUB 4 now (with "now" being understood in the context of the expected timeline of developing W3C Recommendations to mean "within the next several years"). This motivation should be added along with, perhaps, suitable fuzziness about whether there are going to be three things specified (Web Publications, Portable Web Publications that are packaged, and EPUB4 that is also packaged but has a more specific and EPUB3-compatible profile) or just 2 things (Web Publications and a packaged instantiation we call EPUB 4) or maybe only 1 thing (Web Publications) - TBD after the WG kicks off.
@therealglazou
Copy link

I would handle this as a Business Case to be written by the BG, explaining why work on the future of publications is needed, and only refer to that document from the WG Charter. So this is a new document, most probably short, on BG's radar.

@lrosenthol
Copy link

The thinking to date, on the "number of things" is 3 - just as listed in the Charter.

  • WP, address the needs for publications within the "normal" context of the web.
  • PWP, address the overall issues encountered with packaged OWP content (with a focus on those that comply with WP)
  • EPUB 4, provide a PWP-compliant version of EPUB that also addresses EPUB3 compatibility.

iherman added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2017
@iherman
Draft for the business case
1b1db7a 
This is for issue #27
@iherman iherman mentioned this issue Mar 18, 2017
Merged
@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Mar 20, 2017

For the records: the separate document, and the reference from the text, has been discussed, and decided upon, in a separate mailing list discussion. See the corresponding thread.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
BG Comment
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@iherman @whmccoy @therealglazou @lrosenthol