W3C

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

15 Dec 2014

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
 Alan Stearns (astearns), Ayla Stein (Ayla_Stein), Ben De Meester (bjdmeest), Bert Bos (Bert), Bill Kasdorf (Bill_Kasdorf), Charles LaPierre (clapierre), Dave Cramer (dauwhe), David Stroup (david_stroup), Ivan Herman (ivan), Karen Myers (Karen), Luc Audrain (laudrain), Peter Kreutzberger (pkra), Phil Madans (philm), Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Susann Keohane (Susann_Keohane), Thierry Michel (tmichel), Tzviya Siegman (tzviya), Mike Miller (MikeMiller),  Peter  Linss (plinss).
Regrets
Markus Gylling, Vladimir Levantovsky
Chair
Tzviya Siegman (tzviya)
Scribe
Luc Audrain (laudrain)

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 15 December 2014

<ivan> Scribe: Luc

Dave, is it your dog?

<ivan> scribenick: laudrain

<Karen> +1 Luc for scribing

<tzviya> http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-dpub-minutes.html

Last minutes : no comments

Last minutes approved!

Update form Peter on STEM cast

<david_stroup> 585.217

Main update : link on the agenda

STEM Update

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-stem/wiki/questionnaire#less-rough-questions

Ready to turn to a W3C

But, discussion on question of semantics

Quick walkthrough

Preflight check : STEM specific or OWP specific

gather background on person filling the questionnaire

section on content, content types, additional wor k for the web

back-end vs front-end, archieval needs

HTML version on the web vs PDF

Why they differ

section on authoring, formats, tools for authoring, Web reading, Web techno and workflow, accessiblility

How should we respond?

Comments to Peter

by email or the wiki

MathMl part of it : Benetech on MathML cloud

provide accessible content form that content

Benetech implementing in the next year

Peter: problem what kind math will be used,

consensus on chemML?

there might be solutions that work as a service

tzviya: which formats are in use?

But no suggestion, discovery process

Ivan: how will this work? It’s huge

Answering all individual question?

Many questions, too big

tzviya: everything is combined : markup, browser, HTML, CSS

big job distinguishing where to direct the info

Peter: people are generally interested in working on part of it

Like CSS, people might only answer the right section

So no restriction so far

Ivan: practical comment : W3C tool has the option to add a comment box to each question

Bill_Kasdorf: reaction it is huge, but all that detail help people think to take things separately

Ivan: how we should do that in practice?

Big section workflow, sub section with 5 bullets : how to put that in a questionnaire?

How do you envisage the format of the questionnaire?

Peter: questionnaire as a email interview

Ivan: we will have to make sense from the answers

imagine one question, plus bullets multiple questions, plus text box

all text boxes will make a huge job to make sense

Bill: we should ask suggestion on technology

Tzviya: next steps

what is the time line?plan in November

not before January first

Peter: transfer a particular section or question to the TF before Christmas

On the TF: Liam, Ivan

tzviya: should arrange a meeting with the TF

<Bill_Kasdorf> I'm on the STEM TF too

<Bill_Kasdorf> Also Tim Cole

Ivan: ask for help to do the questionnaire using the WBS form from Ivan or Thierry

<Karen> +1 next version of survey in WBS questionnaire format

<tzviya> +1

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/DPUBSTEM/

be careful about to have in a way the public can come in

it is doable, perhaps with a new one

<Karen> +1 pre-test 'guinea pigs'

Tzviya: end of the month, draft of the survey, sent out early january to guinea pigs
... edit actions items

<tzviya> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/

Next point: tracker housekeeping

Housekeeping: trim open actions

21 open actions, 17 overdue

<ivan> open actions: http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/actions/open

go through action list

<ivan> CLOSE action-19

<trackbot> Closed action-19.

<tzviya> close action-20

<trackbot> Closed action-20.

<scribe> ACTION 21 to make it in 2 actions, survey end of february [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-dpub-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: 22 to add or close? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-dpub-minutes.html#action04]

ok to close action 22

<tzviya> close action-22

<trackbot> Closed action-22.

<scribe> ACTION: 23 to close [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-dpub-minutes.html#action05]

<tzviya> close action-23

<trackbot> Closed action-23.

<scribe> ACTION: 24 to be closed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-dpub-minutes.html#action06]

<tzviya> close action-24

<trackbot> Closed action-24.

<tzviya> close action-25

<trackbot> Closed action-25.

<scribe> Closed action 25

<tzviya> close action-26

<trackbot> Closed action-26.

Peter: action 27 should be done sometimes

<tzviya> close action-28

<trackbot> Closed action-28.

Dave: spread behaviors finished

<tzviya> close action-29

<trackbot> Closed action-29.

From TPAC, initiate business use cases: Karen working on that

<tzviya> close action-32

<trackbot> Closed action-32.

<tzviya> close action-35

<trackbot> Closed action-35.

Best practice for rdfa: in progress

<tzviya> close action-41

<trackbot> Closed action-41.

Ivan: somebody from the publishing community should be driving, Liza did volunteer

More people form IDPF for action 43

Please keep issues up to date

List of W3C specifications

Thierry: in DPUB IG charter there is a deliverable, an IG Note of a document listing W3C specifications that are important for the Digital Publishing industry but are still in an unstable state at the W3C, as well as their current state in the process.

<ivan> list is: http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/W3C_specs_for_DPUB

Thierry:I started this effort about a year ago. It is currently in the wiki. We have discussed it before during a telecon, and IG participants have since enriched the document with W3C specs.

Thierry:do we think the list is complete and should we publish it as a NOTE, as mentioned in the Charter?
A second option would be to keep it alive in the wiki and IG participants could update it as needed.

Ivan: I have a third option. A NOTE will freeze it, so it is not a good option. If we keep it as is  on the wiki, the document will be editable only by members of the group

Ivan: Prefer to put it in a more public area, public wiki, anyboby who has a public account can go and edit it

or put it on a github repo: prefer people would have the posibility to edit it

tzviya:agree that an IG NOTE would freeze the document.

Thierry: Currently there are 2 sections in the document : stable techno W3C RECs (mainly used in EPUB3), and techno in dev

<pkra> +q

Peter: MathML and MathML2 on the list, how do we manage the 2 versions ?

Thierry: if the question is which version is currently used in EPUB, a column on the right of the table specifies it.

Bill: « used in publishing » comment

<pkra> I wasn't thinking about epub actually.


Summary of Action Items


 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-12-16 09:01:35 $