See also: IRC log
Garth: "We have two new members. They don't
seem to be on the call at the moment, but if they show up, we can have
them introduce themselves."
...: "Ivan, the other item you mentioned is about having members of the
IG vote on the annotation spec."
<ivan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webannopr/
Ivan: "Actually, the co-chair of the group is on the call. The annotations works has practically finished. We published the proposed publications. Now W3C members should vote if they are OK with this or not. The voting form is linked above. If you are an AC rep, you can take care of it yourself, otherwise you need to nag your AC rep to do it for you. There are a number of people on the call who belong to member organizations. There are some that are AC reps as well. Thats all."
Tim: "The recommendations are pretty much what we've discussed a few months back - no major revisions. We just wanted to make you aware that we're finishing up."
Garth: "Folks should consider themselves aware of voting. Lets get into the agenda. Brief update of the happenings on the IDPF merger. There was an open meeting of interested parties at Digital Book World (DBW) last week. Myself and Karen, Bill McCoy, George K, we discussed then had an open mic period. There was some chime in. There was a committee to save the IDPF, so it was entertaining. It ended up going well, we ameliorated some of the concern. The status of the merger is that it should be complete this week. It is really just a membership exchange. And Bill McCoy is tracking down the IP related items. So there is still a few weeks of the ePub spec being finalized. W3C is royalty free when it comes to IP, so we've been hunting down royalty free items. So that's what we're working on. If the merger completes, I can check that off my list."
Garth: "Yes, the rest of the IDPF board was also available."
George: "If anyone is involved and hasn't signed their IP release, please do so."
Heather: "Is there a good place to point people to explaining what is happening?"
Garth: "IDPF.org is probably the best. There are some that are member-only though."
Bill Kasdorff: "Once it's official there will be a press release that can be pointed to."
Bill Kasdorff: "I've gotten lots of positive comments from people at the conference."
Garth: "Ivan, You've made some updates to the draft charter. Would you like to discuss those?"
Ivan: "I did some changes. There are three
things that are worth discussing. The first is more complex - I added a
section on goal/scope which is more-or-less what's in the current
document. Because there are discussions going on around those, under the
heading PWP, I would think we should do it together. With the only
comment is that whatever is in the charter should be consistent with
whatever is in the PWP document. There are two other things that are
comparitively simple. One is a comment made by Leonard that I made a
pull request for with changes. There is a reference to DPUB ARIA 2.0 -
the text that is still there officially says that dpub ARIA 2.0 would
take over whatever is in DPUB, and put it in the same syntax. This
should not be the only source of possible terms. There might be other
vocabularies that we may want to use in the future, to make it more
clear. I havent' merged it yet as we wasnt to make sure we have
consensus. I've looking to George/Charles if they are here, in the
previous version there was no mention on possible additional work around
WCAG. I know we published a note on our additional features, but it's
not clear to me where the additional work will happen. I think it will
happen in the relevant WCAG working group and not this one, but I added
text to the charter that this group will participate in the work. If you
can review the place where WCAG has been added, please do. It's a bit
wishy-washy, so if you have any comments, please let me know."
...: "These are the three changes. The goals should be discussed
separately."
Garth: "The vast amount of additional text should be matching the PWP document, which was rolled into the drafty-charter. It seems to me that committing those and having this be the tip and continuing discussion off that. Are you OK doing that if there are no objections here?"
Ivan: "I will keep that up to date. the PWP document should be stable and at an equilibrium point."
Garth: "You are reticent to... You have the new draft and scope. Are you reticent to commit those and make them the active charter?"
Ivan: "It is already in the main branch. The only thing I did not push in to the main branch are some of the changes I made related to the DPUB ARIA."
Garth: "OK - i looked Friday and didn't see those.. OK, thanks. Any further discussion?"
George: "Yes, we've been able to add to the WCAG 2.1 elements. Digital publishing is in scope, which is great. A reminder that accessibility has now been integrated horizontally across W3C groups. Our working group moving forward should have an accessibility view to producing our recommendations."
Ivan: "To make it specific, what I did was to add an entry to the coordination section according to WCAG, to say that the WCAG group is responsible for their developments, but we should work together with them to help build."
garth: "Next on the agenda, the Leonard & Nick show. There have been some homework in making this cleaner. Then feel free to head into the other discussion."
Ivan: "Vagner - our new member, has joined in IRC. if you're on the call, please say hello"
<leonardr> PR for my proposed changes
<leonardr> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/pull/39/commits/055b7453e1442be11c25150234e98d947f19eaf6
Leonard: "(Link posted to the pull request) I went through the entire document to understand it. I had a bunch of other questions, but they are not things I've made changes to at this time.
Leonard: "One thing I've done is put an actual definition under the terms section - for locators. So we explain what it is, and why it may not be just a simple URL. "
Garth: "It's a good elevator pitch for locators."
Leonard: "There was a paragraph in Web Publications that talked about state independent locators, things we didn't finalize on, so I modified it to say that locators needed to be resolved regardless of the state of the PWP. I removed references to locators that weren't necessary. I tried to keep it very high level at this point. I left in the reference - there's still one about hierarchy and state independence. I left that there, although we can always take it out. I wanted people to be aware there was a large issue that we didn't have a resolution on."
Leonard: "I wanted to change everything from PWP to WP. Locators talk about all Web Publications, and not necessarily Packaged ones."
leonardr: in terms of locators, that was the
big piece of work
... I left other changes for email discussions
... any questions?
garth: thanks for the effort
... the queue is empty. Is silence consent?
ivan: one thing...
... I'm overall happy with changes
... it looks like you already made some changes in the introduction
which are still in discussion
... it might be better to separate those issues
leonardr: that's fine
... I'll put those back to "musts"
ivan: I propose you merge the whole thing
garth: that sounds good
... do we want to discuss the musts and should-s now?
<HeatherF> fwiw, I prefer email
ivan: there is one more thing... do you want to discuss the business group and CG charter here?
<HeatherF> Easier to track and think about it, and get more folks involved who couldn't be on the call
garth: OK
... the last agenda item was another request to review BG and CG charter
... assuming the merger completes this week
... the BG charter is very important
... since that group will have substantial input on WG charter
... the group could be kicked off next week
... and there could be a F2F meeting of BG on March 13
... but that's too late for substantive discussion of WG charter
... we need to nail down BG charter as soon as possible
... the in-person meeting would be before London Book Fair
... there were requests on the ML to review both charters
garth: comment in google docs or respond to the email thread
George: the first thing the BG would do is
complete the publishing business group charter and methods of working
... the draft as is is not fixed in stone
... we just want it to be sufficient for us to get started
garth: the BG will be less technical
... this group continues to have responsibility for tech details of the
BG charter
leonardr: since we're talking about dates
... do we want to start a discussion of a WG f2f?
garth: a F2F kickoff of DPUB WG makes sense
... I think it will be chartered in April
... Ivan thinks I'm optimistic
... so meeting would be late spring/early summer?
... do we have proposals for a location?
... we should certainly consider this
leonardr: I have a suggestion
<ivan> +1 NYC
leonardr: in NYC, 'cause Tzviya won't be
able to travel
... Adobe has space in NYC and is willing to host
garth: google also has space, but Adobe
sounds good
... and the publishing community is centered there
ivan: we need to take into account a rule
that we need 2 months notice for a F2F meeting
... if the WG really starts in April, then a F2F in NYC in June works
... if we are in position of sending a charter for vote at end of
February then that can work
<leonardr> proposes week of June 19th
ivan: if not, if it goes to the AC later, we
might be able to add to charter or announcement that we plan to have a
f2f
... but we need to be careful
... 2 months is usually needed for people to plan
... in June, there is also the BEA meeting (actually end of May)
... would it be good to co-locate?
garth: you mentioned June... is May too
early? Before BEA?
... we couldn't announce before charter?
<leonardr> Week of May 29th is not good for Tzviya or myself (Jewish holiday that week)
ivan: the clean thing is charter is done, ac
votes, we start in april, then June is OK
... however, having a F2F at TPAC is also very important
... we will have to sync with other WGs
... TPAC is Nov 6-10
... near SFO
<leonardr> Hyatt Regency SF
<garth> Perhaps before (or after) BEA makes sense (per Ivan and others)
ivan: the question is, whether financially
speaking we expect the WG to have 2 F2F during the year
... there may be problems with that
garth: travel-type expenses?
ivan: yes, like me
garth: May/June then November is nice
VST_Rick: many of us will be at BEA in NYC
... I would encourage doing something while we're there
... rather than the following week
leonardr: BEA overlaps with a major Jewish
holiday
... and the holiday is in the middle of the week
... week before or week after are fine
garth: we'll have some time to nail this down
George: one of the comments at DBW is that
people want to participate remotely
... remote participation is highly desirable for a F2F
... I said I supported that
<leonardr> no problem - we have great AV at the site
garth: that's one thing that gets easier if
Google or Adobe or such hosts
... any more discussion of meetings?
... I like the idea of F2F in May/June, and one in November, that feels
like we're moving quickly, which is good
ivan: one more thing... if we want the 1st
of April for WG, then I need more comments on Charter!
... an issue a day :)
... the charter needs a lot of work before sending it to the AC
garth: and look at Ivan's updates from last week
dauwhe: I have some concerns about how the BG will operate in the context of the W3C process
garth: something like "approving" specs from
the CG, like EPUB 3.1.x
... the other unusual thing is input over chartering the WG
... and leadership
... but there would no special input on the output of the WG, that would
be through normal w3c processes
George: I think the BG would want to gather
it's members and encourage review and comment on the WG
... and help and assist in getting proper review throughout the industry
of the spec
... and I think that's in keeping with W3C process
... getting wide review would be a big piece of what we do
garth: was that helpful?
dauwhe: yes
ivan: the question is, is this really clear in the BG charter?
dauwhe: I just want expectations to match what's in the charter
garth: it would be good to posit those to Karen/BillM
George: if you could resend that comment I'd appreciate
garth: Alrighty then
... Ivan and I will meet Wednesday to work on the agenda,
... if you have ideas for agenda you can use the email list
dauwhe: asking group for agenda items is a good thing
leonardr: some of my email issues could be good agenda items
garth: if we don't resolve those issues on the list, we can add to agenda
ivan: leonard, when we get more focused on the email, can you separate them into github issues
<leonardr> +1 - will create issues!
garth: there is still no one on the queue, so we get five minutes back. Have a good week!
[bye]