Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

05 Oct 2015


See also: IRC log


Dave Cramer, Ivan Herman, Bill Kasdorf, Deborah Kaplan, Markus Gylling, Brady Duga, Ben De Meester, Vlad Levantovski, Karen Myers
Peter, Nick, Tzviya, Ayla, Luc, Zheng Xu
dauwhe, Karen


<trackbot> Date: 05 October 2015

<dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/2015/09/28-dpub-minutes.html

mgylling: approval of last week's minutes
... any objections?


scribe: minutes are approved

PWP Document status

<mgylling> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/

mgylling: topic: PWP Draft Note
... our intent is to publish as FPWD as soon as possible
... there are few outstanding issues to solve with comments from Leonard and Bill
... we felt generally that we're good enough for FPWD

ivan: there was some discussion about relationship to epub
... and how we position vis a vis epub
... two big changes:
... first, that it is "publications" rather than "documents"
... second, is that we seemed to get consensus on the states of web publications
... so there are two sections for terminology

<ivan> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/incorporate-states-in-text/index.html

ivan: I have an unmerged version
... where I adopted this terminology
... if we agree I can merge
... the third issue is the relationship to epub
... a general agreement with Leonard and Bill
... I removed references to epub from main text

<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#epub-relations

ivan: instead a separate section (appendix) at end of document where there is explicit reference
... I think this is way better and cleaner
... this text is taken from previous text and some from Bill
... I think these are the main changes
... at this moment I don't have any pending issues
... unless there are major disagreements with content, I think it's way beyond the level of usual FPWD

<Karen> Dave: I have been getting some pushback on the relationship with EPUB in this document

Dave: first one, does text in an appendix have the same force in a W3C doc as it would elsewhere?

Ivan: Two answers
... Question whether it should be a section or an appendix

…I have no preference

…This is an IG note

…not same standing as a WG

…we always make a distinction if normative or not normative

…An appendix can be normative

…it is not part of the main story so to say

…Take an example

…If we have a vocabulary that we define in a document

…it may include the precise OWL specification, so it is normative

…I am ok if we say it should be a section

Dave: That was not a big thing
... The last paragraph


…I wonder if we don't necessarily have to mention EPUB around this

…but wonder if we make this more obvious in the document

…I feel that some of the back and forth on this has perhaps obscured that point

Markus: hmmm

Dave: Especially if it's being read by people who are not part of the current discussion

…We first mention HTML in section 3.2 or something

Ivan: So the real question is

…which section should that be?

…I am not against what you say; purely editorial POV trying to see where this section would go in the story

Dave: I don't think I have anything in mind right now; would take some time to think of it

…I think it's a key part of our message

…We are not talking about throwing away the key OWP stack

…Some people in the discussion perhaps have tried to frame the discussion to other document formats not within the W3C's purview

Ivan: What about the following

…First, I think that the paragraph as it stands now can stay

…repeating is not a problem

…What about at end of 4.1 where we define web resource and what portable web document is

…add a note, as a consequence of talking about web resources, that consist of HTML blah blah

Dave: yes, that would be helpful

Ivan: I will do this today or tomorrow morning

…Ok to make those changes and send a pointer tomorrow

…and then you give a green light?

Dave: yes, that is fine; I don't want to slow down the machinery

Ivan: that is a fair comment

Markus: Seems to be the potential scope on clarity that you raise, Dave, about what we mean by content

…is something that would be a really good discussion to have during FPWD

…if Ivan's latest edits suffice, that's good, if not, we can still make more changes

Dave: Some people are concerned about what message is sent even at the first public working draft stage

<dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe

<Karen> Bill: I have two quick points

Bill_Kasdorf: the fundamental issue isn't throwing away OWP spec
... but accommodating things outside OWP spec
... in the 4.1 definition of web resource
... it says who's content can be accessed through network protocols
... for example, word docs
... which can be accessed but not rendered

ivan: the statement is clear paragraph that should be put after series of definitions

Bill_Kasdorf: we want to avoid possible misinterpretation

mgylling: right

ivan: or maybe even an additional bullet point under web publication definition
... the resources are primarily
... for example, a PWP may include a CVS file
... I don't want to make a strong black and white thing
... the resources are "primarily" OWP resources like HTML that makes it clearer

Bill_Kasdorf: that would be good

Karen: what's the desired timeline for publishing the doc and letting people know
... and building a nice story around that

mgylling: it seems to me that we want to make a final round this week based on feedback today
... I don't see decision on this call, but perhaps next week

ivan: the practical problem is timing
... next Tuesday I will be out
... if I finish everything the 15th can be pub date
... then we get into moratorium
... we could still publish on 20th
... then I'm unavailable for a while
... next week Monday we must make decision if we want this published before TPAC

mgylling: that's Columbus day

ivan: we can make a decision today, we agree to publish providing these changes are made, and there are no objections

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to the strategy Ivan just suggested

ivan: then we can start the process

<Vlad> Columbus day isn't a widely recognized holiday, most companies have a regular business day

dauwhe: EPUB31 is meeting this week

mgylling: that wasn't a counterargument?

ivan: it just means possible objections should be entertained until next Monday
... before we do that, the group must agree on the short name, the stable URI for the doc
... at the moment it's PWP
... we don't have to have dpub-pwp or just regular pwp

mgylling: record in the minutes that we're doing a consensus call on publishing FPWD on October 15

ivan: we do preliminary agreement now

mgylling: let's do preliminary call for consensus on publishing on October 15
... we have until Monday Oct 12 for comments and objections

Vlad: Columbus day is not widely recognized holiday
... schools are out but that's about it

Karen: many businesses don't take the holiday

mgylling: let's meet next week
... let's spend this week reviewing Ivan's edits and any other final edits
... goal is to decide next Monday to publish
... are we ready to move on?

[all] yes!

mgylling: topic: quick info around CSS inline

Karen: the second part of my question is what kind of message that we hope to see?
... what is an appropriate takeaway for publishing this?
... shout from rooftops?
... Bill McCoy and I communicated about this
... what's the big takeaway from this? What's the story?

mgylling: should we schedule time to go through that next Monday?

Karen: OK. That's fine.
... we can deal with it

<Karen> Dave: Just a comment on the message around the release of this document

<Karen> …be a little careful about

<Karen> …my AC Rep will have significant opinions about this

<Karen> Ivan: Maybe you can ask

<Karen> Dave: I can explicitly ask him for what specific messaging to have around this

<Karen> Ivan: and do we want a press release, a blog, the level of noise to have around this

<Karen> Markus: Le'ts talk about this properly next Monday with NIck and Karen; and they will have some additional input then as well

CSS inline

Markus: Tell us about CSS inline

Dave; The big news is the initial letter shifts in Safari; it works in my iphone

Ivan: And Safari on the desktop?

Dave: I believe it will; it is in the release notes

…I believe people who have installed latest version have been making MOs

…Every sign points to that

…bad news is that it's really buggy, unfortunately

<mgylling> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0139.html

Ivan: you can't get it all

Dave: someone should have written a few tests

…we have also published another working draft of the spec

…and continuing to work on internationalization

…it's a significantly hard problem with this feature

…So a) hoping to nail down CJK issues since I'll be surrounded by experts

…at TPAC

…and reach out to the type setting community since we have questions about that

Markus: Cool; anything you need from the IG in terms of CSS inline

Dave: I think the useful thing is good technical knowledge of other scripts

…especially Hebrew, Arabic and Indic scripts

…If anyone knows about Arabic I would love to talk to you

Markus: Might want to repeat that question on the list for those who are not here today

Dave: I think we are going to write up a questionnaires on the lanagues


…Maybe broadcast through group if initial attempts fail

Markus: no one on queue; congratulations, Dave and good luck with the rest of the work

…any additional comments?

Karen: you mentioned this is in safari. Any other browsers?

<Karen> Dave: I don't have any…I know Blink has mentioned there is a higher level feature that they are not interested in implementing

<Karen> …they have no problems implementing if other browsers do it

mgylling: several meaty topics left

<Karen> Dave: No other particular news

Extended Description Analysis with PF

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/extended-description-analysis.html

mgylling: the link to the table that M. Cooper of PF has been building

mgylling: we had a lot of activity around this a while ago
... but work is not done
... Michael and rest of folks in PF have asked for input on completing
... Tzviya sent an email about this

<mgylling> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Oct/0011.html

mgylling: about what kind of input he wants
... wherever there are question marks, input is requested
... or empty cells
... so we should be doing work to properly analyze this
... this was on agenda of a11y call last fri

dkaplan3: it was on agenda
... the grid is very good but there are clarifications we want
... some things are hard to read
... a couple of rows where we're not convinced it's a meaningful requirement
... we're putting together some feedback over the next two weeks
... to have ready before TPAC

mgylling: will feedback be circulated?

dkaplan3: if group is interested.

ivan: I am interested

mgylling: please circulate through list for review

dkaplan3: feedback from the wider group is welcome in any form

mgylling: what does this mean in terms of time
... we can do PWP consensus next week, talk about outreach
... we could have dedicated session to look at your stuff

dkaplan3: I don't think we'll be ready
... charles is still on holiday
... Tzviya has been away

mgylling: the train has left the station in terms of getting this done
... unless there are comments on table, next event will be draft reply from dkaplan3
... questions?
... let's move on
... TPAC sessions
... I missed the planning call
... I know that outreach has begun

TPAC sessions

ivan: I don't know about timing
... session wish list

<mgylling> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Oct_2015_F2F_Logistics_and_Details#Schedule

ivan: Tzviya sent out feelers to all of those
... from Webapps, which is relevant for service workers and also for packaging
... strange situation
... better talk to TAG,
... Webapp meeting is Mon-Tue, as most won't be around for our meeting
... chair of webapps has sent mail to his own group asking for review about service workers, and whether some of them can talk to us

<mgylling> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Oct/0017.html

ivan: she has talked to PF, CSS...
... don't know what the dates are
... annotations update
... maybe some of us should go to annotations meeting
... identifiers are scary
... that's a topic for Bill
... Daniel was happy on doing a session on POM
... a11y is for Deborah and Charles
... having a meeting with HTML doesn't make much sense
... these are the external group meetings

mgylling: identifiers is an internal discussion

ivan: yes
... Bill_Kasdorf, can you dial in?


dauwhe: EPUB31 has an alternative to web manifest spec

mgylling: we could talk about that ourselves
... it may be a bit early

ivan: I think there's more that's worth doing
... in epub31 there are subgroups
... the main points are set
... some of them are very internal to IDPF like reorg of documentation
... but others are relevant to this IG
... giving a list of those, and what the issues are is relevant
... like serialization

mgylling: I think I know what input we would get ;)
... that's one internal session idea
... are there others who want to suggest things?

ivan: we can do it when you are back from NYC
... who intends to dial in and when?

Next meeting

mgylling: maybe we should edit participants table to allow registration as virtual participant
... the final item was should we meet on Columbus day?
... yes
... I think we are done for today
... Ivan will be pushing edits on the PWP draft
... and Dave will talk to "stakeholders" to gather feedback
... so we will feel good about the doc next Monday
... thanks to Dave and Karen for scribing

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/10/05 16:23:52 $