Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference -- 13 Jul 2015

<trackbot> Date: 13 July 2015

Markus: "Approve last week's minutes - any objections - speak up now"

Tzviya: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/06-dpub-minutes.html

Markus: "Great - thank you. In terms of the short agenda - there has also been some postings from George Kersher - his reply to the ARIA-described-at"

Tzviya:http://www.w3.org/blog/2015/07/aria-and-dpub-publish-fpwd/

Markus: "Lets run through the agenda as published. The first thing - we have a URL to a blog post which points to a number of questions for the community. Tzviya can you take us through?"

Tzviya: "We published this draft with a little note at the beginning saying "don't use this yet" there are a list of open questions - some pro forma, some we need to work out. One of the issues that arose are included in the questions. The first question - what are the roles that are needed by the digital publishing community - such as glossary, index... Some are less clear such as 'epub-part',
notice... and we want to make sure people understand them."
...: The 2nd question is the use of the dpub- prefix is OK without conflict? But there was a great deal of debate and the conclusion that a formal extension needed a prefix - but we weren't sure if it should get a - or a : so it's dpub- prefix. does this work with your workflows, will you use it - we want to make sure it will go into practice."
clapierre1: q+

...: "3rd question is what mechanism will be suitable of new roles - we want to make sure the document is extensible itself. "
clapierre1: +q
...: "Last question - is it clear how to sue this with the aria 1.1 knowledge. We discuss this today - you can put feedback in email or post them in github in the document."
mgylling: q?

Tzviya:: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues

Markus: "charles - you had a ?"

Charles: "The ARIA role: I'm just worried we are going to get pushback from the forces-that-be concerning 'why is this needed in the ARIA domain for accessibility specifically' when it should be beneficial for anyone to know something is a footer, glossary, header, footer. I'm concerned they will reject the roles because it's not accessibility specific"

Markus: "Is the concern the accessibility camp rejecting? or the general people?"

Charles: "The ARIA world - that it is so broad that will not want it."

Markus: "We had quite a bit of discussion around that and the question boils down to - how generic is the role? And there are others which represent what you fear - that it should stay very focused on very particular isolated tasks. There are some works to be done on ARIA-land there for the future of the attribute."

Tzviya: "This is one of the things that made it take so long- that we've been working with the chairs of the ARIA group - and they felt very strongly that accessibility isn't just for people with disabilities. Accessibility can serve the entire community."

Charles: "I agree with you. There are also times where people are situationally disabled - such as the use of close captioned. Just making sure we've pointed this out."

Chris: "I guess some of what I'm about to say has already been said. The aria attributes are seen as sign-posts and symantic flagging - which points towards accessibility - which is for people who need it - but not always for people who need it. They are semantics that people can hook off of to get more value from the content."

<tzviya> link to actual spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dpub-aria-1.0-20150707/

Bill: "On theme that I hear constantly is the concept of mainstreaming - that it's better that people needing assistive technology NOT get special treatment - but that people are all using the same files that everyone else is getting. So the fact that these are generally useful is a good thing. It's better that it is 'not special' and works for all"

Markus: "I thought I'd add for clarity: In the blog post the term prefix is used to describe the dpub- prefix - they are not prefixes as we have gotten to know them - that they are not a separate thing from the term - they are hardcoded into the role. It's good for people who dislike prefixes, but there is also a potential drawback in terms of vocabulary if one has the ambition to create a

generic vocabulary, such as in other XML vocabularies, then it is a drawback to have this ARIA specific tweak hardcoded into the name."
...: "This issue is why it took so long to get through the working group, etc. And this is the rules that it came up with."

Markus: "Tzviya - you talked about the 3rd role. And this is just a subset of what we really need in the long-term. We know that peter has things related to STEM. Do you have any thoughts at this point in terms of what kinds of mechanisms we are looking at? Yet, on the other hand, we don't want things to get out of control."

Tzviya: "Well - part of the mechanism is - who is responsible and who has governance. One of the issues with prefixing is that authors should have governance - the joint task force of DPUB and ARIA. Since it's a beach group - it should be OK. "
...: "ARIA has a heartbeat process that slims down the items needed to get in additional terms, etc."
... "In terms of what the vetting process is - that relates to governance. And the way this relates to EPUB also needs to be discussed."
... "If you have any input on this being a prefix - we want your feedback. We want feedback on all of these things. Especially if you're working on a reading system or work for a publisher - offer a comment. Please!"

<Karen> Nick: My question

<clapierre1> /me no more vadar :)

<Karen> …with the prefix the only concern I might have

<Karen> …is dpub the correct prefix?

<Karen> …Reason I ask that is

<tzviya> nick: my concern with the prefix is whether dpub- is the correct prefix

<Karen> …if I am a web developer and say, 'oh this is for digpub and not doing epub, why should I use this prefix?

<Karen> …is dpub a limiting factor? Is it generic and usable for entire web

<Karen> …or is there a better prefix to show it's just not about publishing and books

<Karen> …maybe I'm overthinking?

<Karen> …but it's a comment to get out

Tzviya: "So, we intentionally chose DPUB intead of EPUB - because DPUB is the name of the group, but we are open to other suggestions. Before this becomes final - some terms might get rolled up into the ARIA core spec. Especially things that might be useful for everything. If it is part of just regular ARIA. We are open to recommendations of prefixes."

Deborah: "We tend to see things in a box - but I wonder if some of the new platforms will think of themselves as digital publishing - even if they have the same needs. They will see themselves as "content platforms" not publishers - if we preface terminology with publishing - that may cause people to not look it up for themselves and their clientelle. Possible decouple from the industry in a

way."

Markus: "Lets try to wrap it up

<ChrisL> rel does seem the typical way to specify link types in general

<clapierre1> so this item will be removed? dpub-locator

<clapierre1> A link that allows the user to jump to a related location in the content (e.g., from a footnote to its reference, from an index entry to where the topic is discussed, or from a glossary definition to where the term is used).
...: "In terms of next items, lets revisit the vocabulary. 2 - discussion of moving some of it up to ARIA core. There are pros/cons to that. Having some with and some without prefixes can be ugly. The 3rd is links - so one of the things we ahve in the epub category is semantics for links. We had a few proposed in an earlier editors draft - which were emphatically shot down. We also say

links are defined by REL and not ROLE. Kind of ugly to have a vocabulary party in ROLE and some on REL... Doesn't look like a good setup for a vocabulary for me. that's the 3rd priority for the task force."

Tzviya: "Other big priority is that there is a companion document. and API mapping document - which is a great deal of work - so if you want to join in the fun and know how accesibility works, please do."

Fragment Identifiers Status Update

Tzviya: "We were going to re-iterate the idea of service workers and Fragment IDs"
... "Bill, Ivan's email should be shared with the list - it was very clear."

Bill: "I'm not technically knowledable enough to talk about service workers, but I can at least provide ahigh-level. Fundamentally the way it has evolved is leading us AWAY from a particual spec - because the service worker approach may give us what we want in many context and because - also - and I feel strongly - that this is another example of this group should NOT create a spec but we shoudl

come up with a spec of all the identifiers that are already in use for different media types. "
...: "Service workers is what helps us get to the granularity we need to use those identifiers. Ivan uses a set of progressive examples on how you point to different things. One thing that will help further is the range-finder spec which is being defined. I believe that is the right direction to go. If anyone else from that call is on, and they can comment on the likelyhood of that coming

out of annotations - so that we don't have to define yet another spec, that'd be great."
...: "The point of getting directly to a point that doesn't have existing structure or markup is important. Tzviya - markus - please correct/add."

Tzviya: "Fragment identifiers are definitionally - to date - are tied to content type. EPUB-CFI is tied to the strucutre. What we're looking at now with identifiers, is that they are gathering different types of identifiers is that they are using the URI to point to different types of identifiers. The package identifier could point to many different types of identifiers. In epub-web we're

looking to point to different types of content types."

Bill: "I hope we can do that too"

Tzviya: "The way service workers works means we can think about storage and the way we think about pointing at things. Because things can be stored online in a simpler way."

Markus: "Yes, in a canonical location - but it doesn't stop them from being offline. "
...: "Bill - what does this mean for your task force. I'm thinking we still have alot of wishes that aren't satisfied by the open web platform today - temporal locations, etc. Obviously we are not alone in dpub to want these things. It appears we are the first-hand consumer of that more finely grained and fancy things. None of these needs should be addressed directly. "

Bill: "In terms of questions - what does this mean for the task force? This changes an action item I've had - to come up with a definition of what we need for fragment IDs. Something that enumerates what the needs are."
...: "I am on the working group - nominally. Ivan is on the workin group in a larger capacity - so we can work to make it better."

Markus: "We should work in other relevant working groups and help promote our use cases. Is there anything else we should be focusing on beyond ranges? Are there other opportunities."

Bill: "I suspect the publication ID is the elephant in the room. That's the vision of the epub+web - is that it will have an identifier offline and on..."

Tim: "I guess i'm a little concerned here about the completion between identifiers and APIs. In the annotations we tend to talk about range-finder as an API - you get the results of an API. You give params and it says "I think you're talking about this content. There are fuzzy search options - other things going on... In terms of an identifier, it's not persistent - because if the HTML changes,

the API may return something new. I think this is true for other things as well. One of the things the task force has to address is recognizing the difference between a TRUE identifier and the ways to get through to a resource that isn't defined the way they are today on the web."

.,.: "I just wanted to suggest - even with Ivan's good thinking - there is a bit of additional work left until we really know what we're talking about - and how we're using it."

Bill: "Thanks - Your perspective is very critical on this. Specially we want to articulate those issues."

Tim: "If you talk to someone who has a very strict definition of identifier, they will think you're speaking gibberish..."

Bill: "Are you suggesting that maybe it's ill-advised to speak of it in terms of identifier - and call it a navigation guide?"

Tim: "Possibly: there are these terms when used for percisions - and there are these other mechanism that operate a little differently. We may want to bring those two concepts under the same umbrella and 'navigation' may be a good name for it"

Bill: "A common problem is that people want a single identifier that does everything. In this case - the solution possibly is lots of different identifiers - but calling it a navigation or something else might help."

Tzivya: "The range-finder API does product a URI, is that correct? I believe the draft is changing, but I believe the latest draft does let you pack everything into a URL. It's basically a query string - so I don't know if he's using the # or a ?. The latest version is up on GitHUB"

markus: "We spoke to Doug last week and that it would at least be in the range-finder spec. Ivan's email still expressed that as an unresolved issue."

<TimCole> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/api/rangefinder/

Tim: "I think this is the state of what's in there now. we talked alot about the API near-phase."

Bill: "I'm feeling that we have a very promising sense of direction towards something that will actually work - which is a big step. This is something that having a call of the task-force in the next week or two is a good idea. Do we have enough now to draft that note to the community?"

Markus: "Finally - charles and Deborah, thanks to all of you for the reply to PF regarding the ARIA-Describedat."

Charles: "I wanted to give a shout-out to Deborah for doing the heavy-lifting on the document. It was a nice collaborative effort in getting that done and we thought it gave the most sense for George to send it with his weight behind it. I think that it was a good document and showed our concerns and hopefully will sway the masses."

markus: "One thing we should make sure we do is that we're around on the PF calls when they end up discussing this. George and I are on the PF calls but we don't attend all the calls. But we need to make sure we show up. Are you a member Charles? "

Charles: "No, but i was invited to one of their meetings. Yes, i'll definintely check it out. First week in August I'm on vacation."

Markus: "I'll talk to Jinnie and Rich and see when they will be up for discussion. I'll make sure that they know and invite us accordingly. Any questions/remarks?"

Tzviya: "You mentioned joining a PF meeting. Rich had commented that it might be valuable for non-members to join a meeting of PF to discuss the described-at. Especially anyone who is making tools that are making use of described-at. if you are interested in joining a meeting and you are using (or plan on using) described-at, please let us know. if you knwo someone who might be interested,

let us know."

Markus: "Is there any other business today?"

<pkra> bye.

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

13 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Fragment Identifiers Status Update

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output