12:22:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pmwg
12:22:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/30-pmwg-irc
12:22:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:22:11 <Zakim> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group
12:22:33 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Details 2026-04-30: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2026Apr/0022.html
12:22:34 <ivan> Chair: wendy
12:22:34 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group Telco
12:22:34 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2026Apr/0022.html
12:22:35 <ivan> regrets+ George, gregoriopellegrino, dalerogers, cristina, hadrien
12:55:22 <GeorgeK> GeorgeK has joined #pmwg
12:56:20 <AvneeshSingh> AvneeshSingh has joined #pmwg
12:57:50 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #pmwg
12:58:54 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pmwg
12:59:25 <toshiakikoike> toshiakikoike has joined #pmwg
12:59:35 <toshiakikoike> present+
12:59:50 <gman> gman has joined #pmwg
12:59:51 <ivan> present+
12:59:54 <gman> present+
13:00:00 <wendyreid> present+
13:00:05 <ivan> present+ avneeshsingh
13:00:19 <ivan> present+ makotomurata
13:00:28 <shiestyle> present+
13:00:32 <sueneu> sueneu has joined #pmwg
13:00:34 <ivan> present+ gman
13:00:39 <sueneu> present+
13:00:43 <GeorgeK> present+
13:00:54 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #pmwg
13:00:59 <kimberg> kimberg has joined #pmwg
13:01:05 <ivan> present+ kimberg
13:01:08 <kimberg> present+
13:01:19 <ivan> present+ brady
13:01:30 <MasakazuKitahara> MasakazuKitahara has joined #pmwg
13:01:37 <MasakazuKitahara> present+
13:01:38 <mgarrish> present+
13:01:41 <sueneu> scribe: sueneu
13:01:49 <duga> duga has joined #pmwg
13:02:17 <duga> present+
13:03:17 <ivan> present+ Yong-sang
13:06:42 <wendyreid> Topic: EPUB to ISO
13:07:21 <sueneu> wendyreid: some background ISO has a version of epub, 3.0.1 from 2014
13:07:57 <sueneu> …many countries use ISO as a standard. We have long talked about bringing the W3C version to ISO through the PASS process
13:08:10 <sueneu> …they convert it to the ISO format
13:08:24 <sueneu> …this takes less time than the usual process
13:08:44 <sueneu> …we have wanted to do this for a while but held off because of things happening in Europe
13:08:49 <rigo> rigo has joined #pmwg
13:08:52 <sueneu> …but we now can go ahead
13:08:59 <ivan> q+
13:08:59 <sueneu> …the question is down to timing
13:09:16 <sueneu> …we can take 3.3 to ISO now, but we are months away from having epub 3.4
13:09:34 <sueneu> …which has features like scroll that people will find useful
13:09:46 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:09:56 <sueneu> …is it worth us waiting until EPUB 3.4 spec gets to CR to start to go to ISO
13:10:17 <wendyreid> s/PASS/PAS/
13:10:56 <sueneu> ivan: we need clarity about this, but I understand that we can go to ISO without jeopardizing the European accessibility act
13:11:28 <ivan> present+ Francis_Cave
13:11:28 <sueneu> rigo: the commission wants to reference the EPUB specifcations in the new framework
13:11:45 <sueneu> …of how EPUB is made in Europe and the accessibility requirements
13:12:08 <ivan> present+ charles
13:12:14 <sueneu> …there is no issue here to go to ISO. It may influence how Europeans will reference this issue down stream
13:12:18 <ivan> present+ laurent
13:12:26 <sueneu> …for the moment there is no issue holding it up
13:12:41 <sueneu> …about 3.4 I don;t know if ISO will have remarks on the specification
13:12:53 <Makoto> q+
13:12:56 <sueneu> …but we will need to provide it in a format that is acceptable to ISO
13:13:04 <AvneeshSingh> q+
13:13:18 <sueneu> …the most important thing is to get a wg agreement to move forward
13:13:20 <wendyreid> ack Makoto
13:14:18 <LaurentLM> LaurentLM has joined #pmwg
13:14:18 <wendyreid> ack AvneeshSingh
13:14:25 <LaurentLM> present+
13:14:55 <sueneu> Avneesh: if 3.3 becomes the standard, will the European union accept it?
13:15:07 <wendyreid> s/3.3/EPUB Accessibility/
13:15:27 <sueneu> rigo: the commission initially wanted to fill the gaps of the EU accessibility directive
13:15:49 <sueneu> …in their new legal framework there are some generalities
13:16:08 <sueneu> …we could do this by harmonized standards, which is a specific proceedure
13:16:33 <sueneu> …we would make a specifaction by this specific proceedure, and requires a final vote
13:16:49 <sueneu> …this can be referenced as filling in the details
13:17:08 <sueneu> …if you conform to this standard there is an assumption of conformity
13:17:33 <sueneu> …you are presumed to be conformant, the burder of proof is on an accuser not the publisher
13:17:57 <sueneu> …in the absence of a harmonized norm, the EU can select a specification
13:18:18 <sueneu> …to complicate it further, if something exists as a ISO standard,
13:18:49 <sueneu> …EU has an agreement with ISO, if something is an iso specification
13:19:05 <sueneu> …and there is no harmonized norm, they should largely follow ISO
13:19:19 <sueneu> …there was a concern that we would adopt an old specification
13:19:28 <mgarrish> q+
13:19:51 <sueneu> …there is now a possibility to reference the latest specification in time for legislation
13:20:03 <sueneu> …that is why we decided to overcome the outdated versions
13:20:08 <ivan> q+
13:20:12 <sueneu> …and not interfere with the EU legislature
13:20:38 <wendyreid> ack mgarrish
13:20:43 <sueneu> …they can then give an  EU number to the ISO legislation
13:21:06 <sueneu> mgarrish: this makes me think we should wait for 3.4 because of differences in the metadata
13:21:18 <AvneeshSingh> q+
13:21:28 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:22:02 <sueneu> ivan: one thing worries me, @rigo you were referring to timing issues and we need to move quickly
13:22:19 <Makoto> I have no problems in waiting for 3.4 and 1.2.
13:22:36 <sueneu> …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
13:22:44 <sueneu> …EU parlement?
13:23:11 <sueneu> …3.4 is near CR, but we are considering rechartering for at least a few months
13:23:31 <sueneu> …so we may not see a CR before september or october
13:23:39 <sueneu> …is a CR OK for going to ISO?
13:23:50 <sueneu> …will the EU get impatient?
13:23:52 <Makoto> q+
13:24:14 <sueneu> rigo: maybe the wg should discuss going to 3.5 with rechartering
13:24:35 <sueneu> …I think it should be 3.4, but we could get into an infinite loop of adding features
13:24:50 <sueneu> …it takes about 18 months
13:24:55 <ivan> q+
13:25:06 <sueneu> …if you can iron our little things informally it can go quicker
13:25:24 <sueneu> …I have no information about EU plans, but I think they are aiming
13:25:31 <sueneu> …to do something by 2027
13:25:55 <sueneu> …in the meantime they can always use an implementation act to refer to the w3c rec directly
13:26:03 <wendyreid> ack AvneeshSingh
13:26:21 <sueneu> …but prefer to have the ISO number before they have the implementation act ready
13:27:01 <rigo> need to establish a formal liaison with SC 34
13:27:05 <sueneu> franciscave: it is helpful that w3c is apply for [notsure]
13:27:13 <sueneu> …I hope to see no delay
13:27:42 <wendyreid> s/[notsure]/liaison status with SC34/
13:27:43 <sueneu> avneeshsingh: the people who were not able to join us can review the minutes
13:27:58 <sueneu> …rigo has done a good job explaining the situation
13:28:26 <sueneu> …if ISO has 1.1 going out and then 1.2 soon after, it will cause confusion
13:28:31 <Makoto> +1
13:28:42 <sueneu> …so it is better to wait for 3.4
13:29:00 <sueneu> …regarding rechartering, I see more advancement in media coming
13:29:35 <sueneu> …media overlays requires incubation and should not be rushed
13:29:47 <ivan> q?
13:29:48 <sueneu> …then we can come up with the best recommendations for the spec
13:30:00 <wendyreid> ack Makoto
13:30:17 <sueneu> Makoto: I have no problems waiting for 3.4 and ISO 1.2
13:30:21 <wendyreid> q+
13:30:48 <sueneu> …the ballot will be closed in July, so it will take at least a year for 3.4 to be approved
13:30:48 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:31:34 <sueneu> ivan: to smooth the two processes, what we call CR in W3C document is that the wg thinks the document is correct and final
13:31:43 <Makoto> -1
13:31:44 <sueneu> …and only awaits required implementation
13:31:57 <Makoto> +q
13:32:08 <wendyreid> ack Makoto
13:32:08 <sueneu> …giving the CR version to ISO could speed up the project, since no technical things will change
13:32:31 <sueneu> Makoto: there are so many candidate recommendations that don't become final even years later
13:32:34 <rigo> q+
13:32:58 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
13:32:59 <sueneu> wendyreid: do we have to wait for 3.4 to be REC to start the process?
13:33:05 <rigo> q-
13:33:06 <sueneu> Makoto: yes
13:33:13 <GeorgeK> q+
13:33:26 <sueneu> wendyreid: to clarify, we will be having a recharting discussion
13:33:38 <sueneu> …we should not try to rush in last minute changes but
13:33:56 <sueneu> …do a thorough consideration with all the stakeholders
13:34:05 <sueneu> …it is starting to sound like 3.5
13:34:25 <sueneu> …since we cannot initiate PASS until REC,
13:34:57 <sueneu> …we can say in rechartering, that when we go to 3.5, we can add to our charter
13:35:13 <sueneu> …that we address any concerns that come up in the ISO process
13:35:27 <ivan> q+
13:35:28 <sueneu> …then we are not just sitting and waiting on feedback
13:35:38 <wendyreid> ack GeorgeK
13:35:44 <ivan> q+ Francis
13:35:46 <mgarrish> q+
13:35:52 <sueneu> GeorgeK: Makotos concern about the CR sitting for a long time
13:36:11 <sueneu> …we have many implementations of EPUB and I do not anticipate major delays
13:36:14 <Makoto> +q
13:36:47 <sueneu> …turning over the CR to ISO for initial comments and preparing documents
13:37:05 <sueneu> …that could be offically submitted when 3.4 becomes
13:37:15 <sueneu> …REC could speed up the process
13:37:37 <sueneu> …media overlays could benefit from a broader conversation and move into 3.5
13:37:38 <Makoto> +1
13:37:50 <sueneu> …I advocate for going with 3.4
13:37:52 <wendyreid> ack Francis
13:38:11 <sueneu> FrancisCave: I work on the ODF technical team at OASIS
13:38:27 <Makoto> In the case of ISO/IEC EPUB 3.0.1, there were no changes.
13:38:28 <sueneu> …our proceedure with comments is that if technical changes are required,
13:38:39 <sueneu> …we agree to make those changes in a future edition
13:38:52 <sueneu> …for small editorial changes we publish an errata
13:39:03 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:39:07 <sueneu> …we are trying to speed up our process and are several edtions ahead of ISO
13:39:41 <sueneu> ivan: I agree with GeorgeK and respectfully disagree with Makoto's position on CRs
13:39:44 <Makoto> +q
13:40:06 <sueneu> …in my experience it is rare that CRs hang around for years, it is certainly not the norm
13:40:22 <sueneu> …I usually see the CR going to REC very quickly
13:40:43 <sueneu> …submitting the CR will let us address and problems more quickly
13:40:43 <rigo> q+
13:41:15 <sueneu> …about our 3 documents, the author, RS and Accessibility documents
13:41:36 <sueneu> …what do we do about [missedthis]
13:42:12 <wendyreid> ack mgarrish
13:42:15 <sueneu> wendyreid: is it possible to submit to push to the pass process in CR
13:42:17 <AvneeshSingh> q?
13:42:45 <sueneu> mgarrish: I can answer how we can go to PASS in CR because our document might change
13:42:53 <wendyreid> s/PASS/PAS/
13:43:12 <wendyreid> ack Mak
13:43:15 <sueneu> …can we aks the ISO folks to review the CR like a horizontal review?
13:43:57 <sueneu> Makoto: I strongly believe we can't submit a CR, PAS submissions require a complete document
13:44:17 <sueneu> FrancisCave: if technical changes occur after a ballot, the ISO process starts over
13:44:28 <sueneu> ivan: can we do an informal review?
13:44:44 <Makoto> +Q
13:44:47 <Makoto> +q
13:44:47 <wendyreid> ack rigo
13:44:49 <sueneu> FrancisCave: you will soon have the status that will let you ask for this review
13:45:17 <sueneu> rigo: I think for the ISO process, it is formal. We need the final format state of the document
13:45:24 <ivan> q+ Yong-Sang
13:45:51 <Makoto> The liaison status is just around the corner, I believe.
13:45:58 <sueneu> …we will try to establish ASAP a liasion that will allow submission of a document in any state to get comments
13:46:20 <sueneu> …there is a certain reluctance to make comments after this
13:46:55 <sueneu> …it would be ideal to start the liaison informal stream, the we can still feed in some comments, and when
13:47:13 <sueneu> …we have the final REC step we have all this in place
13:47:20 <Makoto> Recent ballot in SC34
13:47:20 <Makoto> SC 34 N 3303
13:47:20 <Makoto> Request from World Wide Web Consortium, Inc. (W3C) to Establish a Category A Liaison with JTC 1/SC 34
13:47:23 <wendyreid> ack Makoto
13:47:30 <sueneu> …then ISO standard takes one year, if we do otherwise it may take longer
13:47:48 <sueneu> Makoto: there was a vote about establishing a liaison with this group,
13:47:56 <sueneu> …I believe it was approved
13:48:17 <wendyreid> ack Yong-Sang
13:49:02 <sueneu> Yong-Sang: If the ISO can start reviewing the CR, it will let countries prepare for the formal ballot
13:49:30 <sueneu> …if nations/bodies can see the CR they may provide more formal comments from a national perspective
13:49:45 <sueneu> …this informal process could be an important signal
13:49:54 <ivan> q+
13:50:19 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:50:21 <sueneu> FrancisCave: a document was circulated for comment, due in a month
13:50:31 <sueneu> …that would establish a liaison with this group
13:50:51 <sueneu> ivan: what is our next section?
13:51:07 <ivan> s/section/action/
13:51:07 <sueneu> wendyreid: we are waiting for confirmation of liaison status
13:51:17 <sueneu> …with will line up pretty well with CR
13:51:33 <sueneu> …though there is some unknowns about going to ISO with the CR
13:51:54 <sueneu> …what makes sense, is that as soon as we can we submit what we have for comments
13:52:01 <Makoto> +1 to everything Wendy said
13:52:04 <sueneu> …and keep working toward rec
13:52:16 <sueneu> …we could get as much as 3 months of feedback
13:52:36 <sueneu> …and fix any errata and add technical issues to 3.5 charter
13:52:37 <Makoto> +1
13:52:48 <sueneu> Francis
13:54:15 <sueneu> FrancisCave: we have a deadline of June 16th can we get a statement in time?
13:54:49 <sueneu> …we expect a response to the liaison question in late May
13:55:10 <Makoto> +1
13:55:14 <wendyreid> 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.
13:55:19 <AvneeshSingh> q+
13:55:20 <mgarrish> +1
13:55:21 <GeorgeK> +1
13:55:22 <sueneu> +1
13:55:27 <shiestyle> +1
13:55:27 <ivan> +1
13:55:27 <toshiakikoike> +1
13:55:27 <wendyreid> ack AvneeshSingh
13:55:27 <LaurentLM> +1
13:55:27 <MasakazuKitahara> +1
13:55:28 <wendyreid> +1
13:55:35 <duga> +1
13:55:50 <sueneu> avneeshsingh: should we make this resolution when the european members are available?
13:56:14 <sueneu> wendyreid: I won't officially resolve this and will solicit their feedback in the minutes email
13:56:25 <Makoto> +1
13:56:43 <AvneeshSingh> do we need rec resolution? This is governed by process!
13:56:44 <wendyreid> 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.
13:56:47 <GeorgeK> +1
13:56:47 <mgarrish> +1
13:56:48 <wendyreid> +1
13:56:49 <sueneu> +1
13:56:50 <shiestyle> +1
13:56:51 <ivan> +1
13:56:51 <duga> +1
13:56:52 <toshiakikoike> +1
13:56:54 <MasakazuKitahara> +1
13:57:02 <LaurentLM> +1
13:57:12 <sueneu> ivan: this is the same as the first resolution, we will not close it and will ask for input
13:57:34 <sueneu> avneeshsingh: if we are using PAS why do we need a resolution
13:58:19 <sueneu> rigo: 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
13:58:44 <sueneu> …you have made internal W3C decisions with the larger intent to prepare for a submission process
13:58:51 <Makoto> I also think that we do need this resolution.
13:58:53 <sueneu> …we haven't triggered it yet
13:59:08 <sueneu> …this resolution is internal to the wg
13:59:53 <sueneu> …we would never go to ISO without the whole process being in place
14:01:06 <rigo> present_
14:01:13 <rigo> present+
14:01:28 <sueneu> avneeshsingh: the process of going to ISO is using the PAS process which requires the REC level. why do we need a resolution for that?
14:02:01 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:02:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/30-pmwg-minutes.html ivan
14:17:14 <mgarrish> mgarrish has left #pmwg
15:02:54 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pmwg
15:42:01 <rigo> rigo has left #pmwg
16:22:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pmwg