W3C

– DRAFT –
Publishing Steering Committee Telco

15 May 2020

Attendees

Present
Avneesh, Cristina, dauwhe, Garth, George, Ivan, Jeff, jyoshii, Mateus, Ralph, Tzviya, wendyreid, yoshii
Regrets
BillK, Daihei, Liisa
Chair
Ralph
Scribe
dauwhe

Meeting minutes

<ivan> Date: 2020-05-15

<Ralph> previous 01-May

Key items from this week's (Japan-time) Business Group discussion

Ralph: anything urgent from the PBG meeting on Tuesday that we can talk about without Daihei and Liisa?

EPUBCheck fund raising status

Ralph: George, is there more on EPUBCheck fundraising?

George: we had a mistake in an email; the 2nd had the Apple donation
… and $1500 from Germany
… Luc is still managing it; we've asked him to forward the status updates

<Ralph> FW: Latest position on EPUBCheck fundraising- 14 May 2020

Ralph: he can post to the list

George: I'll let him know.

Deltour family support

EPUB Accessibility work

Ralph: some background on this
… y'all know more about the history
… on W3T, we became aware of some scheduling opportunities WRT adoptions of Euro regulations
… The IDPF epub a11y spec was submitted to ISO
… if the ISO balloting process concludes with adopting this, it would shut out W3C
… and updates would have to go through ISO process
… now we have a draft EPUB 3 WG charter with a11y as deliverable
… is it appropriate, useful to indicate in that charter that might help the ISO process be aware that there is a w3c rec-track effort to improve that spec
… w3c doesn't have a formal input to the iso process
… but if we had a charter that showed we had an improved spec on the rec track, that might be useful
… those who know more about the status of EPUB a11y in ISO might inform us if this would be helpful

tzviya: I have a related comment
… I was on WAI coord call last week
… there were a few questions about the a11y spec
… there was a lot of concern about why this doc is a note, why it's happening apart from WAI
… the question is where it's going next
… if it's rec track, where will it live
… should it be in WCAG? Which WCAG?
… and we'd need to talk to the WG immediately
… we need to get it on their radar
… and we need to do a better job of making people in WAI aware of what we're doing

Ralph: clarifying Jeff's question
… W3C has PAS privileges, but they kick in only when we have RECs

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to react to tzviya to clarify on PAS

Ralph: it's in a draft WG charter
… the crucial conversation for today is, how quickly do we need to give more indication that w3c is interesting in doing REC-track work on EPUB a11y
… to Jeff's Q
… if there's an ISO ballot on something we didn't submit, our PAS authorization doesn't apply

Ivan: three things
… 1. On Tzviya's comment, today EPUB a11y in EPUB 3 WG charter is on REC track
… it's alongside the rest of the EPUB specs
… lately we got a stronger involvement from Shadi Abou-Zahra
… there is also another issue, which I may not understand because of EU
… the EU has to decide what doc they want to adopt for a11y regulation
… and that will be the basis of further regulation
… they will have to make this choice in June 2021
… the real Q is beyond the ISO question, the real choice is what they will do in 2021
… they are supposed to take a doc that's a standard, and give priority to formal standards bodies like ISO, since W3C is not on the same level in the eyes of Brussels
… the ISO document will be become a standard before the end of the year, and we can't stop that
… we should be able to show by June 2021 we have gone further than the ISO doc, with an a11y doc in complete sync with EPUB 3.X
… and the EU could then adopt our work
… I'm not 100% how we could achieve that
… Shadi is trying to find out what level of doc we have to show in June as good-enough proof that we've gone further than ISO
… that's my understanding

George: Makoto put a statement in when w3c said it wasn't going to maintain this
… I made it clear that w3c was going to continue to move forward with the spec
… I was told it need to be ISO for the requirements of Asian nations
… we also thought it would be helpful in Europe
… it was needed in Japan

<Ralph> [W3C never said that; my understanding is that Murata-san claimed that W3C had made some decision]

George: it was clear we would be moving it forward
… the group that developed the ISO version... there were questions about onix along with schema.org metadata; we realized we would have to address that in the next revision in w3c
… there was no substantive changes in ISO
… I voted in yes in NISO for the U.S.; I commented there was no substantive difference
… and all pubs that conformed to W3C note would conform to the ISO spec

Ralph: is it your understanding that once this ISO ballot completes, then w3C's PAS capability becomes null?
… could W3C still submit an update? My understanding is that PAS does not apply once there's an ISO standard

George: I don't know for sure
… we could ask ???
… the same thing applies to WCAG
… 2.0 is an ISO standard under w3c

Ralph: we can do this for WCAG because w3c was original submitter

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about harmonization

jeff: clearly we want this spec to get ISO's blessing
… when Makoto raised this question earlier
… we did not conceive of a path at that time where EPUB a11y would be on the REC track
… and given the immediacy, we said OK, take it through a different path
… even though there were representations we were uncomfortable with
… had we had a REC track, we would have preferred w3c's path through ISO
… we use a method where we retain change control in w3c
… if issues are raised in ISO, they are brought to the relevant W3C group
… but we retain change control
… if specs come through other processes, we lose change control
… to what extent do we want to risk the fragmentation of such an important spec?
… we could end up with two different EPUB a11y specs
… EPUB a11y as a theme is very important, esp. in Europe, if there are two specs there's a risk they'll take the ISO version
… it could become a problem if the documents diverge
… harmonization is key
… if we think this is important
… do we want to stop the existing submission? I don't know any other way to ensure harmonization
… we didn't have another path then
… but now we have it in the draft charter
… there might be other paths

Avneesh: we all know the history
… looking at the future we always planned EPUB a11y as a short-term state
… the ultimate goal would be everything in WCAG
… we don't want a separate doc
… we want one standard, silver, that covers everything
… we don't think this is something that will go on forever
… specific to EU, there are three levels
… Technical Spec, which has lowest significance
… then "Standard" which has to come from ISO
… but EU will not accept anything from ISO directly.
… but will ask a Euro organization to pick up the ISO standard
… the highest level is harmonized
… which can only come from a Euro organization
… so where is EPUB a11y spec now?
… the Euro people don't care about diff between rec track and CG note
… there are OK with w3c spec and adopt as technical spec if no one objects
… but if any w3c standard wants to become standard in EU it's not possible without more process and change
… I don't think there's a question of harmonization with EU
… we can only ensure by putting EPUB a11y as Technical Specification
… I don't think we have to worry so much
… if we want higher level, we have to fight with Euro standards groups and fight for minimal changes

Ralph: clarification on something...
… the euro folks don't care about rec track vs CG note

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to react to Avneesh to comment on "don't care about diff"

Ralph: W3C's ability to have special dispensation under ISO PAS
… to insert a spec we've developed into ISO
… W3C's permission to do that only applies to REC-track docs
… the Euro folks may not care, but W3C can only do PAS on REC track

Avneesh: if I see ISO
… even ISO spec can become Euro only with work from European standards bodies

Cristina: some more info about EU process
… when we discuss going to ISO
… the commission has an agreement with ISO
… at that time the final proposal for the directive was not yet published; we were working from draft
… the final version of directive had two possibilities
… one is to give ??? a mandate, to find an existing standard that is aligned
… if there is not an existing standard, to create another euro harmonized standard

wendyreid: I am a bit unaware of the ISO/W3C/EU megacomplexities
… there have been suggestions of what we need to do to EPUB a11y
… it might not have to happen in the EPUB 3 WG
… I'm ok with moving to WAI
… Cristina has mentioned the need to work on requirements for FXL a11y
… that's a huge addition
… we'd want to tackle in the WG
… we're ok if one of the first things we have to do is the A11y work
… and we could notify everyone about what we're working on, and how it will go beyond the ISO doc
… real changes do need to happen to the document

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to point out that we cant change what has happened. how to move fwd?

Tzviya: we can't really change what's happening in ISO
… Jeff asked if it's been approved; I don't think we'd want to stop it as we agreed as a group
… wendyreid mentioned we need to move forward
… we'll likely split up the doc; move some into silver
… but how to make a11y FXL is more a best practice than something in WCAG
… how do we divvy this up?
… and meet with silver task force
… and be represented in the WAI coordination group

<Zakim> Cristina, you wanted to react to tzviya

Cristina: my last comment

Ralph: Cristina, you were saying the final version of the directive has 2 possibilities

Cristina: 1 is to give mandate to euro standards body
… verify if there is existing standard, or need to create a new one
… and they can see if there's a fitting ISO standard
… this will be long
… publishers may need to produce content not knowing the final version of the standard
… in 2025 all the books produced and distributed should be compliant
… we need to have the standard soon
… the other option is that euro commission adopt "technical specification" which has a different meaning than in ISO
… it just means standard developed in open way, Amazon would not be accepted, but from a nonprofit with stakeholder consensus
… if there is a document from w3c that complies with this requirement, we can describe how it's been developed, and might be accepted by the commission
… and it must meet the high-level requirements of the euro a11y act
… so we need to check what's already in the euro requirement, and prepare a doc which describes how the process complies with the requirement
… this is better than if commission in june asks for mandate
… Euro Pub Assoc will agree with us

George: Korea EPUB 3.0.1 through fast PAS process to ISO
… because it's a Korea-adopted standard
… they won't maintain the spec; that's on us
… there's an understanding we'll do the work
… the issue of FXL... we've heard them talk about multiple renditions in EPUB
… I'm still researching that

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on ISO to EU process

jeff: several remarks about how specs go back and forth between W3C / ISO / EU
… how the harmonization process works: everyone likes harmony. Fragmentation is bad.
… WCAG 2.1 is a good example. WCAG was taken up by the EU with no changes
… we worked hard to get them to agree to adopt WCAG
… we had everyone understand A. harmonization is good. B. we have an open process C. The work gets done at W3C

<Ralph> [Jeff cites EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe]

jeff: so I'm optimistic that if we pub epub a11y on REC, and repeat our principles to other standards orgs, that there would be a high likelihood they would want to adopt the w3c standard
… the issue we have with the current ISO EPUB A11y, it was done at a time when we didn't have a plan to continue the work
… it's being balloted now; and being voted on by people who don't understand that there is a new possibility
… I'm not saying we stop the ISO process
… I meant to stay we should communicate to those who are voting that a new opportunity is coming up
… and the stakeholders should consider that a harmonized standard might be a better plan
… and develop a REC and use PAS
… and work with all the stakeholders
… on EN 301 549 we worked very closely with EU to meet their deadlines

Avneesh: I don't think we should worry about the specification
… if we are going to make substantial changes, it can be submitted as new standard
… there are even different names
… we can submit a new standard via PAS

Ivan: I try to see what the next steps could be
… I'm charter editor
… we can make it explicit in the charter what are the things we intend to do with this doc
… Cristina's remark that we should put into the charter saying some of the work we should be doing is if the doc is aligned with the euro rules
… we want to make it aligned with what the EU wants
… the other thing I heard was to take care of FXL a11y
… so making it clear we're moving beyond what ISO is working on now
… so we can rename as Avneesh mentioned
… and then the next thing, I think we should keep it in this charter, where we expect to have the expertise
… WAI probably has no idea what FXL is
… more people here understand it
… we have a doc that is in sync with EPUB itself is a very strong message
… in the WG schedule, we commit ourselves the CR of this document earlier than the other documents
… can we take the risk of putting a target of June 21 as a target for EPUB a11y
… if we have that, then comes what Jeff says
… and that doc might already be good enough to reach out to our friends and foes
… and say our goal is harmonization around this work

Cristina: 2 things to jeff
… when you speak about WCAG accepted by EU, was it technical specification?

<Zakim> Jeff, you wanted to react to Cristina

jeff: the EU standard for mobile a11y is a broad standard
… i think it says in the standard, for this piece use WCAG 2.1 from w3
… it's done by reference

Cristina: in that case you worked with euro standards body after they had the mandate

<Ralph> EN 301 549

Cristina: if possible to work more on the possible proposal of Ivan, before euro commission gives mandate

<jeff> https://‌www.essentialaccessibility.com/‌blog/‌en-301-549/

Cristina: it would be easier and quicker
… how long do have REC track?

jeff: on first point
… we've put in some links on how wcag is referenced
… as far as how long it would take... we need to charter first
… then it's a working group decision

Cristina: I have checked your links. You were involved after the mandate. A more complex process.

Ralph: we've used our fifteen minutes

<Zakim> garth, you wanted to say “yes, Ivan’s suggestion seems a good one”

garth: +1 to Cristina's +1 of Ivan's suggestion
… it seems reasonable

Ralph: what I'm hearing is that some subcommittee of Cristina, Ivan, Avneesh, and George could propose some text for the charter

ivan: the timing questions of Cristina and Jeff
… when we start the formal process is not clear to me
… I don't see that happening before June
… in optimal case WG can start in September
… for the REC track process
… there is incompressible time of six or seven months in any case because of IPR policy
… what I propose is not to publish REC, but to publish CR earlier
… it's a strong message to say the a11y doc will be in absolute sync with EPUB 3.X
… if we publish a REC earlier, the argument becomes weaker--they can get out of sync
… CR means it's technically complete; we are just testing with the community
… if we have that doc by next summer, we're in a good place

Avneesh: epub a11y is designed to work with any version of EPUB by design
… the timeline of development will depend on what changes we want to make
… substantial changes would take more time

Cristina: if we have a clear process and timeline, we can go back to the commission and explain what we are doing
… they are committed to make the mandate for products, we could ask them to wait for services
… the fact that the process is open is very important

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask about "fixed layout improvements"

Ralph: what nature of work might be useful as an early success
… wendyreid mentioned FXL
… but then Avneesh said [the EPUB A11Y spec] is not version-specific
… Avneesh, George, Cristina--who's the right person to work on language that would help

Avneesh: I'll help

Cristina: I'll help

George: this is language for the charter?

Ralph: yes
… there is some urgency because of timelines

Avneesh: what's our timeline? 1 week? 2 weeks?

Ivan: I would like to have it in one week
… we need approval from w3m, from our own a11y people, before going to AC

Action: Avneesh, George, Cristina, Ivan propose some text on EPUB A11y for the EPUB 3 WG charter

ivan: if we want to start in September we need vote by June
… there is an orthogonal issue; we don't have comments from non-Japanese publishers on the charter

Ralph: I though we had Wiley's comment
… Avneesh, Ivan is eager to get this started
… this is important to get right
… next week is very busy for many of us
… but there's not an actual deadline

Cristina: we can work in a google doc

wendyreid: in agreement with Ralph and Ivan
… to the people who are going to draft it, do whatever you are comfortable with
… I can help get it into the charter in github
… we really need other publishers to comment on the charter

Ralph: thanks everyone for taking the action about this

ivan: who takes the first shot at it?

Ralph: the four of you can decide

Garth: Liisa and Leslie... do they count?

(everyone) yes

Garth: let's give them an action to them to comment

Action: Garth to get Liisa and Leslie to respond

<Ralph> [adjourned]

<Ralph> dauwhe++

Summary of action items

  1. Avneesh, George, Cristina, Ivan propose some text on EPUB A11y for the EPUB 3 WG charter
  2. Garth to get Liisa and Leslie to respond
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 117 (Tue Apr 28 12:46:31 2020 UTC).