See also: IRC log
garth: I sent an update to the agenda,
correcting the minutes URL
... minutes approved
cbogen: I am project metadata for content metadata at Pearson
<garth> Welcome Carly!
cbogen: I came from OCLC where I worked on Library software
garth: We also have another new member from
Apex, but I don't think he's on the call
... some of us were in Brussels or London last week
garth: EPUB Summit was much larger than the
first one in Bordeaux
... maybe 150 attendees
... lots of talk about how epub is used
... including corporate use
... like the euro publications office, which had a low adoption rate
... there was a demo of Readium LCP
Bill_Kasdorf: note that the "L" in LCP is licensed rather than lightweight
George: Laurent posted a blog post about the event
garth: there was in interesting presentation on using EPUB as an archival format
George: Avneesh presented on conformance to the epub a11y spec
garth: then we went to London to meet at the
News Building
... this was the Publishing Business Group
<Karen> +1 HarperCollins UK host and VitalSource sponsor of Publishing Business Group meeting
garth: minutes
are in the agenda
... we made progress on the Publishing Working Group charter
... the other two issues were EPUB4 and how it fit with WP and the
charter
<leonardr> Thinks that WG name is a bad idea...but so be it...
garth: [quotes from charter draft]
... the other issue was what to say about DRM
... the changed text is a parenthetical
... [quotes from charter draft]
... so it's like EPUB, you can have hooks for DRM but no specification
about DRM
... there's new language about liaising to the BG and the CG
ivan: there was an issue from Jeff that we
need a business justification for EPUB4
... Bill Kasdorf created a document,
which we are referencing from the charter
... we seem to have agreement on the text in the charter about this
... as for the current status
... all these issues have been folded into the charter text, except for
the DRM one
... which remains as a separate PR, pending the response of the original
creator of the issue
garth: it's not a huge change
ivan: my feeling is that he will not be
overly happy with the solution
... the only open issue left (apart from timeline) is there's going to
be an editorial overview from BISG and Liisa
... we did get some editorial comments
... once that's done, we can create an abstract for the mission
statement at the top of the charter
garth: that sounds good
... we made good progress in London
... my view is that the interest group will wind down as we ramp up the
working group
... the IG charter expires in October
... so I think we should just let it expire
... so do all the things happening in the IG have homes?
... issues: liaising with CSSWG, and the ARIA accessibility work
... we do have text in the charter that moves primary a11y work to the
WG
... I do want to talk about the current CSS work; I'd suggest we stay
the course and do it in the WG
... before we get to that, what we're looking for is what IG stuff is
not already assigned
dauwhe: Perhaps latinreq and other things can move forward as non-rec-track docs in the WG
ivan: yes, perhaps we can add a note to the charter
dauwhe: I'll try to come up with language for adding latinreq to charter
garth: sounds like we'll stay the course
... any other items we need to migrate?
... that could be pushed to BG/CG/WG?
leonardr: I have a question
<George> WCAG 2.1 and 3.0 are in scope
leonardr: the use cases doc--what happens to
that?
... it's not called out in the charter
ivan: it is called out in the sense that
there is a use case document
... the IG should make a final stamp on it
<leonardr> Ah, see it now under 3.2 as an optional!
ivan: and to the PWP draft, as interest
group notes
... to show it's done
... if the WG feels it needs a continuation, than it can be picked up
there on non-rec-track
garth: that sounds good
garth: the next topic is #6 on the agenda
... the milestones of spec creation for the WG
... Ivan did a draft
... it looks good to me, but folks should take a look
... FPWD in Q4 2017
... REC in Q4 2019
... is this insane or reasonable?
ivan: just to clarify
... FPWD--first public working draft--it's our first stake in the ground
... it's an important milestone for IPR
... the CR means candidate rec, which means the group decides consider
the technical design as done
... between CR and REC there is testing, implementations, and AC review
... so they may be iteration of the CR, if testing reveals problems
... I made a pessimistic timeline
... and left a long time between CR and REC, because testing and
implementation will be long and tedious
... it's really important to show interop among reading systems or
browser extensions
... so that's why there's a year for the CR phase
... if we finish earlier, then everyone will be happy and get brownie
points
... it's a draft I came up with in an afternoon, and it may be flawed ;)
leonardr: in general I think it's reasonable
and realistic
... my only comment is that FPWDs are going to be pushing it on timing
... that's the only thing I might shift to later
ivan: one comment there, to be clear
... FPWD is a stake in the ground
... the FPWD might say, for example, we need a manifest which includes
metadata, but doesn't say what metadata
<astearns> An FPWD can be filled with issues describing what needs to be done
ivan: some FPWDs have sections which are unfinished/unstarted
<leonardr> Thanks @astearns
ivan: just getting our thoughts organized on what should be done, so I think the end of the year is OK
garth: that seems OK, but I'm the optimistic
one ;)
... barring disagreement on that, that was one of the remaining holes in
the draft charter
... the next agenda item is open issues... are there any of these that
we want to discuss?
garth: the big one was the EPUB4 motivation,
which is in the BG
... the rest seem editorial
... should we talk about any of these now?
ivan: I think you're right that it's mostly
editorial
... but the issues may be serious
... I'd like to get input from BISG as soon as possible
garth: Brian O'Leary picked up that action item
ivan: I've asked the W3C team for horizontal
review... we already have some i18n feedback
... I have a call tomorrow and will push for security review
leonardr: can we come to agreement to not
act on issue 24?
... that rewrites all the terminology we've used
ivan: I think we need some feedback from
Brian
... what you said you should put in a comment for that issue
<leonardr> Happy to comment on the issue
<scribe> ACTION: leonardr to respond to charter issue 24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action01]
Avneesh: this is already in the agenda
... the a11y text that has been added
... we do not have agreement from all the people yet
... we also think that the a11y text should be integrated into the
bullet points
... The group will meet this Thursday to discuss
garth: I thought some of the a11y text was moved on purpose
leonardr: it was agreed on the mailing list
Avneesh: I don't think everyone agreed
dkaplan3: we agreed to look at it and investigate
<leonardr> Gotcha on the difference
garth: that was pulled into the most recent draft. true?
ivan: yes
garth: It was agreed by this group, but not the task force
dkaplan3: no, the agreement in this group was we'd put it in a branch and then the task force would look
garth: we did have discussion in this group,
and there was general consensus on one of the changes
... is it rolled into the current draft?
ivan: my recollection is that we agreed on
that on a call, and then it has been rolled into the document
... and then in the short email discussion...
... we have to be careful... today I would prefer not to touch it
... there was also an i18n review
ivan: and so this text became more general,
adding i18n as another fundamental principle
... so moving that text might be complicated
... my feeling is we should leave it as is
... we can discuss on email
garth: I'm blind. Can someone point me to the section in the draft charter?
leonardr: it's the last para of section 2, scope
garth: fair enough
... it sounds like there'll be a discussion of the task force, and
hopefully we can find agreement
Avneesh: when are we expecting to publish?
garth: the current top of tree has this
language
... along with most everything else we've agreed on over the last week
... and we now have an agenda item on how to get this to finished for AC
review
Avneesh: could you please wait for the a11y task force to review?
ivan: there's a master branch; there are
pending PRs on the timeline, etc.
... tomorrow, there will be more merge
... what's on the master branch is it
Avneesh: I want people to review, and if changes are needed that's fine
garth: if there need to be changes, we can
discuss in the coming days
... we can open up again if needed
garth: we need to nail this
down
... we've abandoned hope on June 5-6
... and are hopeful on June 22-23
... timing depends on AC vote
... We want charter finalized before AC meeting April 23-25; that works
timewise for late June F2F
... there is a DAISY meeting the following week in the Netherlands
... Hopefully we can do NYC
laudrain: there was also an idea to have the F2F in Paris, 25-26th
garth: that conflicts with DAISY meetings in the Netherlands
laudrain: Hachette could host at the beginning of that week
leonardr: when are daisy meetings? Monday-Tuesday?
Avneesh: It's Monday-Thursday
Avneesh: one more comment... EDRLab can co-host
laurentlemeur: we could host, but we could go to NYC
<leonardr> I have to double check the dates, but I would expect so - yes
garth: Adobe can host in NYC, and we can get
Tzviya, and we just did a series of meetings in Europe
... I lean towards New York
brady: I don't know if this group has met outside the US outside of TPAC
garth: we should do a doodle poll for counts
<dkaplan3> many of us met in NYC several years ago
laudrain: I can't do June 22-23 anyway
garth: Ivan and I will discuss
... we'll get a poll for attendees, if not locations
ivan: the best thing is to have a poll which includes a reference to location
<Karen> +1 poll
ivan: does the google form allow both time
and location choices?
... let's do date and place poll, and see where we are
<laudrain> +1
<scribe> ACTION: garth do do poll for meeting time and location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action02]
garth: thanks everyone. We'll have a decision on whether there will be a call next week soon.