Meeting Record

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_DPUBIG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 58 minutes ←

Unknown NickRuffilo: Zakim, I'm asking if you had an enjoyable weekend. The weather was beautiful here in NJ. ←

Unknown NickRuffilo: I'm sorry Zakim, but I'm not giving up on you. You'll be a real boy soon enough. ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see astearns, mgarrish, Ivan, pkra, duga, clapierre, NickRuffilo, HeatherF, Bill_Kasdorf, Markus ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pkra, AH_Miller, bjdmeest, HeatherF, Bill_Kasdorf, clapierre, brady_duga, mgarrish, NickRuffilo, mgylling, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, rego, plinss, Karen_, iank, astearns, ←

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'it means you did a great job', NickRuffilo ←

...: "Epub module for ARIA. Link posted in IRC. This was discussed in the previous meeting. State is that the editors are trying to get it to first public working draft." ←

... : "we need to have a recorded consensus from both publishing groups. The protocols and formats working group..." ←

...: "PF discussed the editors job. There were some concerns against it so they have not gotten to a public working draft yet. We'll be discussing this with them for the weeks to come." ←

...: "Concerns were: Global issue - prefixing of terms for modules such that they end up in different domains. Also a number of concerns in specific terms, such as the 'abstract' term which is well known in books, but also a term used in ARIA for a different purpose. Abstract roles are something that should never be used for content... Identical strings but different meanings." ←

Bill Kasdorf: Just reiterating my minority opinion that I think prefixes are very useful. The abstract example is one of many. ←

...: "First public working draft isn't expected to be fully complete, or without conflict, which is why we hoped to get there, but it seems these issues need to be discussed before it can get there." ←

Ivan Herman: "We should see how far we can go and where the breakpoints are" ←

Bill Kasdorf: "A little bit stronger case: I've always throught that prefixes would end up being necessary. In real-estate what you call an abstract is different from what you call it in books/journals. there are scores of examples of definition conflicts if we don't use prefixes." ←

...: "Based on the RDFA way of doing things. Using the :. The vocabulary basics..." ←

Bill Kasdorf: "I was also reminded that despite the fact that it isn't used much, the prefixing IS available in the role attribute." ←

Ivan Herman: "You say the roll attribute has prefixing using the color. But thats the full domain space, etc. That's a sledge hammer. I thought that you can do something like '[typed above]' is that accepted within ARIA?" ←

Ivan Herman: "When they're using namespaces, do they want the obvious sledgehammer or the dash?" ←

Unknown Marcus: "Maybe we can raise the question again. If we look at it from a 10-mile high up perspective. If it looks like the W3C wants to support digital publishing, why should things be supported..." ←

Unknown Nick: Coming from a different perspective [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←

Karen Myers: …so an abstract is a conceptual term that has a solid definition but limited in its scope ←

Karen Myers: …and four high-level concepts that we should define terms for ←

Karen Myers: …and lower level ones could be something else, or publishers define them ←

Karen Myers: …at some point digital publishing overtakes physical publishing ←

Markus - "We do need to take a step back and possibly do the more generic term. In the case of 'abstract' we need to look to see if there is a super-class or parent." ←

Matt Garrish: "We need to be weary about saying 'lets just change a term' as that may not yield us the results we like." ←

Markus Gylling: "have to consider things that are not tied to glossary definitions?" ←

Markus Gylling: "To get to the first public working draft we need to have recorded consensus. As for doing call for consesus here, shoudl we do that now?" ←

Heather Flanagan: But this is still a working draft; as you said, it's still ok to have discussion topics ←

Peter Krautzberger: + for pushing it. we have a week, no? It also allows the minutes to this call to circulate. ←

Ivan Herman: "Ideally, the resolution should be taken on a meeting. It's perfectly fine if there is an e-mail discussion between now and next week and if the consesus is done via email. At this moment I'm very - I don't know how to handle it. I can understand that there might be a number of first-class application areas/things from web applications who are just as important - potentially in long term ←

Ivan Herman: "What I tried is putting the concerns that some people have in the PF working group. They could discuss with us via email as well." ←

...: "No need to wait for a week when we could have these issues/concerns properly written down and given to us so that we know what we have to answer to. Not only in general discuss but these are the problems." ←

Charles LaPierre: "It was mentioned that we don't want the 'role' attribute to say 'dpub-' which treats it as a second class citizen. What is the alternative?" ←

Markus Gylling: "The alternative is what we're proposing, where terms are there. A possible solution is similar to what ARIA has done, which is to limit definitions to avoid conflict." ←

...: "There are two ways to do it, hyphenated and RDFA. What we're saying is that we shouldn't do it for everything, but we should consider it for some." ←

...: "It's complicated. There are pros and cons for everything. In XML there was so much fear of conflict that EVERYTHING became prefixed" ←

Charles LaPierre: "If we had something to define - at a global level - to say this is publishing, and everything below is for digital publishing..." ←

Ivan Herman: "That gets into religious debate... About roles being able to define profiles... HTML5 declared that to be a dead idea." ←

Bill Kasdorf: "Publishers do need definitions, and are using 'class' at the moment, so that they know what it is used for." ←

Bill Kasdorf: "In the real world, people do use these terms and embed them in their concept." ←

...: "Next up: Short FYI - Collection of use-cases called packaging. Overview of OCF added." ←

...: "This new page lifts the functionality that OCF does. These are the functional hooks." ←

Ivan Herman: "I went through the text sometime last weekend and there is one question for me that I don't have an answer - if you look at the epub-web and the reason for looking at packaging, it's relatively key to me that if we use the packaging format for web-packaging that we still need to add a super-structure to it for epub-web. Many things used and defined by epub that would migrate to a new ←

environment. What I would like to understand is the difference between what zip gives me and what web-packaging gives. To compare what is comparable." ←

...: "Whether ZIP or web-packaging is the best for us is the question for which I don't have a reasonable answer." ←

Markus Gylling: "We still need a fairly exhaustive list of use-cases, then we can start building these comparisons and see what is doable where." ←

Ivan Herman: "I did look at the use-cases that Tzviya put up there. I tried to see which could be used by either. That is what I'd like to see more of." ←

Markus Gylling: "Simply put: Next step, once Tzviya - who owns the use-case collection - will be to start doing the comparison." ←

Markus Gylling: https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/May_2015_F2F_Logistics_and_Details ←

Markus Gylling: "What we've done is to put the first ... together. If you go down to the schedule area, you'll see we have generous time sessions for packaging, identifiers, pagination and the re-charter." ←

Unknown Nick: "We should discuss outreach/education at the meeting - maybe 30-45 minutes?" ←

Markus Gylling: "We'll finalize next monday. when we hear back from charles and deborah" ←

Bill Kasdorf: https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Task_Forces/identifiers#Open_Annotations_Fragment_Selector ←

Bill Kasdorf: "We've had productive accumulation of information on the wiki. We have a candidate of specs to consider. [listed a bunch of identifier types]. Ivan added the open-annotations identifier, which I strongly support. I think philisophically aligning the fragment identifier with this annotations model makes all the sense in the world. the reason they are aligning with that is that it's ←

extremely flexible and it defines a range, not a point. The other ones point to something that is already a defined thing - such as an element. This also allows you to associate a state with an identifier which is very helpful. it accomodates some of the others that have been defined. I'm not trying to force this on anyone, but I'd suggest you look at the options that we have and note there ←

is a strong case to be made. It is not final though, originated by the open annotations working group." ←

...: "It's in a working draft. If we think this is the right way to go, we should state that we will align with the way the owrking group is doing the identifiers. it would be nice to keep this moving along but I won't be on the call next week, so not sure if this is something we need to do via e-mail, or am I being too quick to zero-in on the solution." ←

Markus Gylling: "It is not clear to me how the open annotations document has. How can it be translated into a URI? There is no mapping of the concept to URI - at least not yet. For our purposes, it would be important for us to have that." ←

Bill Kasdorf: "The draft does provide a number of example URIs expressing fragments for a number of different use-cases" ←

Ivan Herman: "The point is that no, it does not give you a URI. It operates on a different environment because it would express the anchor in terms of an object with various attributes." ←

...: "So, that is how you define a range selector, but it's not a URI. In this sense it is different from the usual segments." ←

...: "That is a question we need to ask - is there a way to express those params as a URI" ←

Scribe problem: the name 'Tim' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Tim Clark Timothy Cole . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown Tim: "My sense is that there hasn't been much - if any - sense of making that URI. It was defined to be an RDF solution. It's about creating a triple and using those triples to define a fragment." ←

...: "That said, a couple of these ideas were taking from different communities. so there may be other options/solutions to turning this into a URI fragment." ←

Zakim IRC Bot: astearns, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Markus (14%) ←

Bill Kasdorf: "That was what I wanted to discuss: What are the next steps? Obviously we need to resolve this URI question. Do we need a spec that, before the annotations has the official spec. I'd prefer to align just with what they are doing. It would be nice to get a consensus that this is the diretion we want to persue." ←

Unknown Nick: Does the URI standard have a character limit? [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←

Liam Quin: A lot of current webapps would fail under that [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←

Unknown Nick: I can tell you that Chrome will stop at 512 characters [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←

Unknown Nick: I don't know; purely a bug and curiosity about breaking things [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←

Heather Flanagan: FWIW, "Microsoft Internet Explorer has a maximum uniform resource locator (URL) length of 2,083 characters. Internet Explorer also has a maximum path length of 2,048 characters. This limit applies to both POST request and GET request URLs." ←

Markus Gylling: "With 1 minute - are there any contenders for items next week." ←

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were clapierre, NickRuffilo, Bill_Kasdorf, HeatherF, Markus, astearns, mgarrish, Ivan, pkra, duga, Karen_Myers, bjdmeest, MikeMiller, +1.585.217.aaaa, TimCole, pbelfanti, ←

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

Minutes of 13 April 2015

1. Packaging examples

2. F2F agenda

3. identifiers