See also: IRC log
RJ: Thank you for joining our call. as was relayed in email from BM, we will hold this time for steering committee or the pbg. Our next call is in two weeks.
<Rick_Johnson> https://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html
RJ: Minutes are linked in irc. Any comments?
If no we will assume the mintes are approved.
... Move as close as possible to the charter being as close to possible.
<ivan> charter issue list: https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues
L: in the minutes from London. I want to know if there was a decision about Pierre position.
Luke: the recommendation was to make a recommendation.
RJ: George was going to reach out to Hachette
Luc send to Luke Orrayan the AC rep. George will send the message to luke.
IH: working group charter we are working on. There are issues 15 and 24 that are tricky.
... Take 24 first. Came in a critique of goals and scope section. Discussion took place yesterday. The main issue is that it is too general withourt defining. IH agrees with the proposal.
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/24#issuecomment-289726627
IH: I cam up with a shorter more concise of
text. I'll put it here.
... I have not received an answer from the commentor. It would be good
if the rest of you could comment. We want to close this. It is the
replacement text for the whole goals section.
RJ: two inherent items within 24.
IH: therm web publication for that one my
opinion is to keep what we have.
... The interest group has spent a lot of time getting to the term we
have today..
... Nothing stopping us from changing the term later in the process. So
let's not do anything.
RJ: Echo Matt that we could spend a lot of time of naming. The main job is birth and launching and not worry about the name.
BK: Comment, using the word publication aligns with the rest of language at W3c.
Paul: We do not want to be side tracked by items that come in.
IH. We have agreement.
IH: I would also like comments on the goals
section.
... Put comments on the issues list, thursday at the latest.
... I travel on Friday to OZ and if we want to get this going, it would
be best to finish it up before I leave.
... Thursday is the natural deadline.
RJ: I will be happy to comment in that time line. We want to close this up b4 you leave.
BK: Is concensus the lack of objection? I suggest that an email to the list that states speak up by Thursday.
IH: It would be proper to clean up the minutes and include the decisions. One of the chairs can emphasize in a follow up email that
GK: can somebody copy names from the webx into the irc?
IH: for those that did not follow the text
that cam in a long time ago has said these things are out of scope.
Including DRM.
... There was text that says howver, the WG will not do anything to make
DRM impossible. There is an objection against this.
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/15#issuecomment-288635115
IH: Two folks did not like this and we tried
to come up with text that would be more suitable and we think we are at
a spot where the test works.
... I posted the text.
... a few hour ago David commented and still against it and he gives an
arguement. This made me think and in the way we wrote it. On one side
there we will do everything to kill DRM on the web and the other camp is
to enable DRM on the web.
... My proposal is to cut back everything Keep the sentence is that DRM
is out of scope and no other statements around this. We can expect the
working group to do the right thing.
<laudrain> I’ll try
<ivan> scribenick: laudrain
BK: charter is for web pub, some profile could introduce that concept
<George> BK:Hadrien comments are relevant. this means that some profile could not introduce something. So IH rec is good.
LLM: for Web Pub, no issue
For profile there would be a need in the package to express which DRM is used, in a standard way
<George> Laurent: For EPUB 4 there would need to be some information about DRM and there must be some way to find out the way the DRM is implemented in EPUB 4.
Only a hook
<George> IH: We don't have the final tech solution, so speaking from the top of my head.
Ivan: no final tech solution but there will be some sort of manifest in WP and EPUB4
We will standardize the format of that manifest something like that
<George> IH: we know there must be some text and in the package which is a key value pairs. We will standardize a number of things that need to be in the package
<George> IH: if the manifest is extensible, for education purposes then an external reference to DRM can be implemented, but it will not officially be a specification of DRM, so it is not in scope of the charter.
<Hadrien> not having a standard extension point for encryption would be problematic, not just for DRM
<George> IH: we cannot say that the manifext cannot be extended. By the way, the EPUB 3.1 has one hook and it is not specified.
<Hadrien> it's also needed for font obfuscation in EPUB
<George> GB: One way to clarify is to say that DRM is out of scope, for the avoidance of doubt, the wg would make no specs that prevents or requires the implementation.
<George> Thank you very much
Ivan: not sure that’s necessary
To be clear what I propose is the same as Moz proposed originally
Graham: What out of scope means?
clarification needed
Ivan: Graham would you try to answer to the issue?
Graham: I’ll try
Hadrien: needs some sort of extension point about encryption
Font obfuscation for instance
some standard extension point is need more generic
Ivan agrees
George: Expression in document for libraries for document time out, but just a RS flag
Ivan: in any case, extension point is needed
Rick: any other comment?
Non more comment
Ivan: comment on 24, and Graham on 15, and we will see
Rick: Graham about what « out of scope » means
BiilK: works for me
BillK: an EPUB would be more restrictive than WP, but DRM comes from the supply chain, not publishers
Graham: the requirement to do so may come from the publisher
Ivan: issue 36, closed, comments from Murata Makoto for more explanation
Issue reopen with an answer
Please look and comment if necessary
Issue about latinreq still open
Does anyone can look at it?
somebody has a right reference for BFF?
Hadrien, :
nothing stable, asides from Dave repo
wait for Dave
Ivan: to be modified later
Rick: about the external document?
Ivan: organization of the BG
a document why EPUB4 is necessary
This document from BillK it is referenced in the charter
It is not part of the charter. There should be an area on the WWW for that doc to be hosted
Create a separate github repository for that kind of document?
happy to setup that repository
Rick: as BG move forward, there may be more doc that need a home
<George> George agrees with a github repo
Liisa: another repository would be fine for doc that group may produce
<pbelfanti> +1 to stated comments
I agree
Rick: closing the other issues?
Near final charter before living?
Ivan: yes if no other new issue comes
<michaelbaker> I have not been able to get the MS it on the calendar yet.
contact with people at Apple, and Garth from Google : may come later
Rick: we are on the time line
George: with Apple, I would need to know what is the proper approach?
Ivan: to ask them to review the charter, if they can live with it or they see any problem
It’s better to hear now if they have any issue
we have 3-4 weeks to handle issues
<scribe> ACTION: George to join Apple people [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-pbg-minutes.html#action01]
Michael: what is the procedure?
Ivan: do the samle as I told George
We would deal with a call if needed
Michael: I will share the charter
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to share the charter with MS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/28-pbg-minutes.html#action02]
Ivan: practicla thing : member of the Steering Committe send their github account bt mail