15:53:36 RRSAgent has joined #pwg 15:53:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-pwg-irc 15:53:56 Zakim has joined #pwg 15:54:06 *I have no audio connection today (as I am not at my office) so that I may only act via IRC ;) 15:54:53 *Wolfgang waves back @dauwhe :) 15:57:16 Vlad has joined #pwg 15:57:31 timcole has joined #pwg 15:57:32 mateus-teixeira has joined #pwg 15:57:50 laudrain has joined #pwg 15:58:14 toshiakikoike has joined #pwg 15:58:37 present+ 15:58:44 present+ 15:59:01 present+ 15:59:02 Zakim, who is here? 15:59:02 Present: laudrain, timcole, Vlad 15:59:04 On IRC I see toshiakikoike, laudrain, mateus-teixeira, timcole, Vlad, Zakim, RRSAgent, wolfgang, mattg, Rachel, Karen, plinss, tzviya, dauwhe, astearns, bigbluehat 15:59:04 *is it possible to ask sth via IRC only? 15:59:22 present+ 15:59:23 ShaneM has joined #pwg 15:59:29 present+ dauwhe 15:59:31 cmaden2 has joined #pwg 15:59:44 rkwright has joined #pwg 15:59:53 present+ 15:59:55 present+ 16:00:04 present+ 16:00:05 hagreen has joined #pwg 16:00:35 present+ harriett_green 16:00:42 Avneesh has joined #pwg 16:00:44 garth has joined #pwg 16:00:50 present+ Garth 16:00:53 *thx, tzviya :) 16:00:57 present+ Avneesh 16:00:59 rrsagent, this is PWG Weekly Meeting 16:00:59 I'm logging. I don't understand 'this is PWG Weekly Meeting', tzviya. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:01:18 leonardr has joined #pwg 16:01:36 clapierre has joined #pwg 16:01:39 pkra has joined #pwg 16:01:44 present+ Leonard 16:02:01 *bots have a quite restricted vocab. 16:02:08 Hadrien has joined #pwg 16:02:36 present+ Chris_Maden 16:02:39 present+ Peter Krautzberger 16:02:50 present+ ShaneM 16:02:57 chair: Tzviya 16:03:15 zakim, pick a victim 16:03:15 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mateus-teixeira 16:03:33 I can scribe 16:03:46 laurentlemeur has joined #pwg 16:03:48 evan has joined #pwg 16:03:48 duga has joined #pwg 16:03:49 thanks Peter! 16:03:54 present+ 16:03:54 (if you need help, let me know...) 16:03:57 present+ 16:04:03 fchasen has joined #pwg 16:04:06 Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg 16:04:06 present+ 16:04:13 present+ 16:04:20 https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2017/2017-06-26-minutes 16:04:23 present+ 16:04:29 tzviya: approval of previous minutes 16:04:29 present+ 16:04:53 ... => approved. 16:05:07 HeatherF has joined #pwg 16:05:29 harriet: new to the group, representing University of Illinois. 16:05:44 clapierre has left #pwg 16:05:50 welcome, harriett! 16:05:55 ... digital publishing initiative 16:05:58 thank you! 16:06:37 tzviya: shane from specOps is here. 16:06:42 ... we would like your input on testing etc. 16:06:47 ... overview: 16:06:57 s/specOps/Spec-Ops/ 16:07:02 ... WG was just chartered 16:07:19 ... somewhat special since we carry on items from IDPF merger 16:07:23 ... four deliverables: 16:07:44 BillMcCoy has joined #pwg 16:07:45 Avneesh has joined #pwg 16:07:51 ... web publications and portable wp might end up be one specification with a layering 16:07:53 present+ BillMcCoy 16:07:56 ... epub4 is next epub version 16:07:56 present+ 16:07:59 <- as an Illini grad, go @dauwhe! 16:08:09 ... dpub-aria is a continuation of the current spec 16:08:18 ... all specs need testing, we need testable specs 16:08:26 Yay for iterative testing! 16:08:31 clapierre has joined #pwg 16:08:33 ... given the amount of specs, we have a lot of work to do. 16:08:53 George has joined #pwg 16:09:09 shane: daunting tasks 16:09:23 tzviya: we're not necessarily talking about browser implementations 16:09:36 The telephone access code is what? 16:09:56 USA: +1 (312) 757-3129 16:10:00 ... e.g., Readium team largely here, will feed into testing via Readium. not expecting Firefox etc to implement anything. 16:10:03 Access code: 994-278-485 16:10:26 ... we we need to make sure that we clarify epub notion of reading system and user agent. 16:10:44 q+ 16:10:45 q? 16:10:53 ack l 16:10:53 ... if reading system uses the same kernel as a browser but does something special, that might count as a different agent. 16:11:06 q+ 16:11:19 rk 16:11:21 leonard: each of our documents have different testing requirements. 16:12:00 ack rk 16:12:06 ric: from readium foundation perspective, there are several different variants 16:12:13 ... SDK uses different engines 16:12:19 ... chrome app, end of life this year 16:12:19 George has joined #pwg 16:12:29 ... readium cloud reader => whatever browser 16:12:36 ... all leveraging a browser engine underneath. 16:12:51 shane: web engine for presentation and user interface? 16:12:54 ric: yes, and scripting. 16:13:17 tzviya: to recap, somewhat different than usual W3C testing. 16:13:45 ... note: FPWD targeted before TPAC. 16:13:56 MN in winter - +1 to that :) 16:14:23 shane: we have a lot of work on testing. 16:14:55 ... focused on accelerating 16:15:02 ... breaking the problems down a bit: 16:15:19 ... dpub-aria space is well understood, reasonable testing strategy that seems to work 16:15:31 ... underlying a11y platforms is also well understood. 16:15:47 994 278 485 does not work 16:15:48 ... feel free to take advantage of the smart people around that. 16:15:53 q+ 16:16:07 ... re epub, lots of platforms consume epub 16:16:25 ... at w3c, we want to be inclusive of anyone that implement our specs 16:16:51 ... how has epub testing been done historically? 16:16:53 (yup - no hurry) 16:17:18 tzviya: IDPF had different implementation requirements, more "how do you plan to implement" 16:17:28 to tzviya, ok 16:17:39 epubtest.org 16:17:42 duga: there is an epub test suite, maybe somewhat stale, tackling rendering and processing 16:17:57 epubtest.org tests reading systems - very manual 16:18:02 ... epubcheck tool: checks epubs against specs, also a little stale but efforts to update underway 16:18:03 s/duga/garth/ 16:18:13 ouch. 16:18:16 thanks duga. 16:18:31 https://github.com/IDPF/epubcheck is test suite for epub files - overhaul in progress 16:18:34 ack lr 16:18:35 leonard: from F2F, can you talk about W3C testing authoring vs consumption? 16:18:46 shane: authoring is not tested. 16:18:58 Is that true? HTML and CSS validators? 16:19:11 ... W3C publishes guidelines for a11y, i.e., WCAG 16:19:16 to George, the US number is USA: +1 (312) 757-3129 16:19:20 ... that's requirement on content but IIRC the only requirement. 16:19:21 The XML specs are content specifications. 16:19:33 leonard: how does this apply to HTML and CSS validation? 16:19:54 shane: we only provide tools for authors to check their content. 16:19:59 Thanks @shaneM 16:20:22 tzviya: that's another difference from IDPF, historically provided validators, i.e., epubcheck. 16:20:38 ... its success is not due to IDPF requiring it but people selling epub requiring it. 16:20:49 ... to come back to testing specs. 16:21:00 ... that's not something that's been done historically at IDPF / for epub 16:21:06 ... it's a pretty manual process 16:21:08 I think a validator is decisive for a publishing format 16:21:10 ... nothing automated about it. 16:21:38 shane: is it correct to say: epub3 is (or will be in epub4) a superset of HTML and CSS. 16:21:51 garth: both sub and superset. 16:21:53 q? 16:22:00 q- 16:22:00 ... this might be less true as we define epub4. 16:22:09 ... likelihood that we will leave more alone than in the past. 16:22:19 Like SVG animation... 16:22:22 present+ George 16:22:49 tzviya: for web publications, while we haven't figured details out, it's modeled on top of web app manifest. 16:23:05 ... i.e., a superset. 16:23:39 Tzviya sounds good 16:23:46 shane: there are already rich tools for testing html/css/js/dom implementations. 16:23:55 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests 16:23:59 ... webplatform tests are a large collection of tools. 16:24:54 ... these can be used to assess epub readers automatically 16:25:11 ... if an epub reader is just something that supports the format and uses the webplatform 16:25:21 ... then it's more about extending tests within this framework. 16:25:41 q+ 16:25:53 ... this is the way forward in the W3C 16:26:12 ... for format, it's mainly processing structure, not throwing errors 16:26:35 ... whether manual or automatic might be open to discussion. 16:27:29 ... manual is onerous but is ok and can be necessary 16:27:59 ... some automated via format checks (manifests => associated files => feed them into existing processors) 16:28:05 ... on epub side, we can use the tests you have. 16:28:22 ... essentially, epub is a profile of the web platform. 16:28:43 ack rk 16:28:48 ... so you can define that profile and define tests that implementor has to pass in addition to web platform tests 16:29:36 rick: from F2F, do we need to test aspects of specs that are not part of the packaging structure, i.e., do we need to run html tests, do we need to create epubs that encapsulate all the web platform tests? 16:29:39 q+ 16:29:50 ... or just those that are part of the packaging or specs we produce. 16:30:02 shane: I suspect it's up to the group. 16:30:06 see what I did there, shane? 16:30:18 ... depends on the architecture of the reader 16:30:33 ... e.g., Readium built on platform browsers who already run these tests. 16:30:36 q+ 16:30:52 ... would find approval in W3C to state that you use browsers that are known to run all tests 16:31:32 ack da 16:31:37 rick: went through test suite, some don't use readium at all, just testing underlying browser engine (e.g., fetching a file and rendering) 16:32:09 ack l 16:32:12 dauwhe: for testing browser features, the history of epub shows that we have challenges. every reading systems has mangled some CSS, so we do need to test. 16:32:35 leonard: also, security. 16:33:06 tzviya: shane, any recommendations to get started with these tests? 16:33:13 ... not many people have experience with W3C test 16:33:23 shane: start with assertions, testable statements. 16:33:33 ... people tend to start with a wiki to capture them 16:33:41 ... then work out how that might be tested 16:33:50 ... that usually reveals how this could be tested 16:34:31 ... once you have some momentum there, then work on a general strategy 16:34:55 ... at that point bring in somebody like shane 16:35:47 rrsagent, make logs public 16:36:04 ... e.g., fetching requests, there are tests, including lots of edge cases. 16:36:19 tzviya: any suggestions? 16:36:25 shane: e.g., benjamin. 16:36:38 ... also browser vendor people are available to W3C. 16:37:15 ... I will do some reflection and come back with suggestions. 16:37:49 ... it's a social critical task. 16:37:59 ... for us 16:38:18 tzviya: ok, we will follow up. 16:38:44 tzviya: agenda item: packaging format update 16:38:49 https://github.com/WICG/webpackage 16:38:53 garth: see link. 16:38:55 topic: web packaging update 16:38:59 ... briefly discussed at F2F 16:39:13 ... the new web packaging effort seems to be alive 16:39:26 ... brady and garth met with some of Googlers 16:39:28 q+ 16:39:36 ... they are open to working with us 16:39:44 ... to see how it can fit our needs as well 16:39:46 q+ 16:40:11 ... it is being bifurcated, formatting and signing taking to IETF while browser and packaging will remain in W3C. 16:40:27 :-) 16:40:30 Which working group? 16:40:32 ... IETF in Prague this month, the work will be presented there. 16:40:48 ... after that we might get an update from them 16:40:50 q+ 16:40:56 ack b 16:40:59 ... might have news late this month. 16:41:07 @heatherF - I'm wondering the same thing because AFAIK it's not be taken up by anyone... 16:41:22 billM: re coordination with web platform WG 16:41:46 ... latest conception of spec in recharter of web platform WG has drifted quite a bit 16:42:03 ... connection with web app manifest 16:42:14 ... we might need further coordination on that that's broader than publishing 16:42:44 ack l 16:43:22 ack h 16:43:25 ... not clear if co-chairs have signed off on moving to IETF 16:43:30 leonard: spoke to our IETF reps, IETF does not seem to have taken this up 16:43:40 HeatherF: what group is supposed to be discussing this? 16:43:51 leonard: that's the question. couldn't find a group. 16:44:07 ... maybe we can ask Jeffrey what IETF group is taking this up. 16:44:10 garth: will do. 16:44:33 tzviya: topic manifest 16:44:35 topic: Manifest 16:44:55 dauwhe: one of our issues has 72 comments. 16:45:09 ... struggling to focus some of the conversation. 16:45:12 https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues 16:45:30 ... some premature discussion on serialization. 16:45:40 ... somewhat worried about re-inventing the wheel. 16:45:46 ... e.g. navigation 16:46:05 ... web publication and the web works, we should build on that 16:46:16 ... instead of stuff that's only implemented in a very narrow world. 16:46:20 q? 16:46:42 tzviya: agreed. some issues are getting into very technical details. 16:47:05 ... but we need to focus on broad FPWD not specifics if json is best 16:47:19 ... we need to get the broad scope of that down. 16:47:33 dauwhe: I think we are wrestling with some fundamental issues 16:48:02 ... trying to write something down in the broadest way possible, forces us to work through these issues. 16:48:06 ... they will be very impactful later on. 16:48:07 q? 16:48:30 .... e.g., idea of dauwhe going through issues, splitting off smaller bites 16:48:41 ... that seems like a reasonable next step. 16:48:54 tzviya: and don't hesitate to close issues. 16:49:03 q+ 16:49:10 garth: issue with high-level stuff in manifest 16:49:19 ... if we break them down, do we risk rat-holing on the technical issues 16:49:40 ... as opposed to driving towards agreement on the 5/6 items that should end up in manifest. 16:49:50 q+ 16:49:52 q+ 16:50:05 dauwhe: makes sense. Maybe try to move that issue more towards on consensus on the big picture. 16:50:16 ack ti 16:50:17 ... on required vs nice to have bits. 16:51:08 tim: re spawning more issues. providing a venue for discussion details like serialization. 16:51:30 ... if we break it off now, it can continue for as long as it needs to, say a year. 16:51:35 ... you don't want your main issue to go on that long. 16:51:45 ... but those one's can. 16:51:57 ack tz 16:52:22 tzviya: note that we don't have to resolve issues before starting to write. 16:52:49 ... dauwhe, maybe getting something down on pixels will be better to make progress. 16:52:55 ack l 16:52:56 dauwhe: agreed. 16:53:25 leonard: some of the long threads came to good points of agreements. 16:53:37 ... e.g., what is (not) required for manifest. 16:53:46 ... I think there's good work already. 16:54:07 ... happy to help sorting out spin-off issues 16:54:37 tzviya: any other groups want to get started? 16:55:23 topic: Accessibility TF 16:55:40 avneesh: send out call of participation 16:55:46 Doc of tasks from NYC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXM51YzrfahFmkJBL-rt69Jvo0LGbOesleuEgwRWvP0/edit#heading=h.3y4ve9p5vwos 16:55:50 ... about a dozen interests, mostly US. 16:56:08 ... we can only formulate our plan once we talk to wcag. 16:56:31 ... we've reached out, some delays due to vacations. 16:56:38 ... but we need to prepare well. 16:57:03 ... once we do that, we need to figure out the timeline and sort out what goes where (on which WG ) 16:57:44 tzviya: rich from WCAG reached out on interest in co-chairing personalization TF 16:58:07 laurentlemeur has left #pwg 16:58:12 laurentlemeur has joined #pwg 16:58:14 avneesh: we have to work out priorities. There are groups where we need to participate vs we need to drive. 16:58:18 q+ 16:58:23 ack cl 16:58:33 tzviya: agreed but they are actively looking for a co-chair. 16:58:54 clapierre: tentatively interested. 16:59:31 pkra has left #pwg 16:59:49 clapierre has left #pwg 17:00:05 cmaden2 has left #pwg 17:00:36 clapierre has joined #pwg 17:00:41 present+ 17:00:53 mattg has left #pwg 17:03:14 clapierre has left #pwg 17:05:44 rrsagent, make minutes 17:05:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/10-pwg-minutes.html tzviya 18:58:34 tzviya has joined #pwg 19:31:42 Zakim has left #pwg 20:11:08 Karen has joined #pwg 20:27:43 tzviya has joined #pwg 22:04:48 Karen has joined #pwg 22:35:04 garth has joined #pwg