-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
Five options for creating ISO IEC specifications
MURATA Makoto edited this page May 5, 2023
·
10 revisions
Warning: The content of this page is outdated. In 2023, the only option for creating and ISO/IEC standard for EPUB 3.3, EPUB 3.3 RS, EPUB A11Y 1.1 is the PAS procedure. Option 2, 3, 4, and 5 are no longer relevant.
This wiki provides an overview of four possible options for creating International standards or Technical Specifications in ISO/IEC JTC1 from EPUB 3.2/3.0.1 and EPUB accessibility. Options 4 or 5 can be combined with the other options.
Option 1 (EPUB 3.2 PAS): Creating W3C recommendations and then creating ISO/IEC standards via the PAS-submission procedure
- Usable for International standards
- Estimated timeline: The earliest possible target date is late 2020. (When can W3C publish recommendations for EPUB 3.2? Ivan thinks that, after the CG creates solid drafts, a 3-4 months chartering period followed by a WG with a charter of about 18 months would be needed. Others are much less optimistic. After W3C recommendations are published, a 6-month DIS ballot and then a comment disposition meeting are needed.)
- Pros: EPUB 3.2 and EPUB A11Y will become W3C Recommendations.
- Cons: TPI members cannot join the new WG.
- Cons: Normative references to W3C WDs or CRs (e.g., CSS Writing Modes) should be avoided.
- Cons: The process for developing W3C Recommendations is heavier than that of IDPF. See World Wide Web Consortium Process Document.
- Pros: W3C provides a patent protection to the documents and ensures the free availability of the document
- Pros: Not required to be rewritten in the ISO/IEC style
- Pros: No risks of divergence between W3C and ISO/IEC, since W3C has complete control
- Pro and Con: Comprehensive test suite required for EPUB to become a W3C recommendation
- Unusable for Technical Specifications
Option 2 (EPUB 3.2 Normal process): Parallel development between W3C and ISO/IEC: W3C publishes a Community Group Report, and ISO/IEC publishes standards.
- Usable for International standards
- Estimated timeline: DIS in late 2019 and IS in late 2020, if a reasonably mature draft can be developed by the end of 2018.
- Cons: EPUB 3.2 and EPUB A11Y will become W3C Community Group Notes, which are third-class citizens in W3C.
- Pros: Normative references to W3C WDs or CRs (e.g., CSS Writing Modes) are allowed if Reference Explanatory Reports are endorsed by the SC34 plenary.
- Pros: The process for developing W3C Community Group Notes is lightweight.
- Cons: Required to be written in the ISO/IEC style (to be precise, ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2)
- Cons: At least theoretical risks of divergence between W3C and ISO/IEC
- Usable for Technical Specifications
- Pros: No W3C Recommendations (and thus no WGs) are required.
- Cons: Required to be rewritten in the ISO/IEC style
- Cons: At least theoretical risks of divergence between W3C and ISO/IEC
Option 3 (EPUB 3.2 Fast-track): Creating National Standards first and then creating ISO/IEC standards via the fast-track procedure
- Usable for International standards after standardization in some member body of JTC1
- Estimated timeline: Very likely to take more time than the normal procedure, since standardization as a national standard is needed.
- Pros: Not required to be rewritten in the ISO/IEC style
- Cons: At least theoretical risks of divergence between W3C and ISO/IEC
- Cons: It is very unlikely that Korea can publish EPUB 3.2 as a Korean standard and then submit EPUB 3.2 to JTC1 in a timely manner.
- Unusable for Technical Specifications
- Estimated timeline: The target date is middle 2020. (The fast-track DIS ballot for EPUB 3.0.1 requires 6 months and the comment disposition requires a few months. EPUB A11Y requires a CD ballot and a DIS ballot, at least.)
- Pros: Not-so-late publication
- Cons: EPUB A11Y is required to be rewritten in the ISO/IEC style, although it is short.
- Cons: Might hamper the adoption of 3.2.
- Estimated timeline: The target date for EPUB 3.0.1 TS is 2018 June, and that of EPUB A11Y is the first half of 2019. (The ballot for EPUB 3.0.1 is closed and the result is positive. EPUB A11Y as a TS can be done by the normal process and it requires a PDTS ballot only)
- Pros: Quick publication
- Pros: Required resources are minimal.
- Cons: EPUB A11Y is required to be rewritten in the ISO/IEC style, although it is short.
- Cons: TSs are weaker than ISs. Governments pay less attention.
- Cons: Might hamper the adoption of 3.2.
In the EU, W3C is part of the MSP (multistakeholder platform for ICT standardization), and as such, our specs can be recognized through their process, so there are further steps, it's not automatic, and in addition, it's not us (the Fora) making the request for recognition for a given spec, but a EU member state.