14:59:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dpub-loc
14:59:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-dpub-loc-irc
14:59:17 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
14:59:38 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #dpub-loc
14:59:56 <ivan> Meeting: DPUB IG Locator Task Force call
15:00:14 <ivan> Chair: Ben De Meester
15:00:19 <ivan> Present+ Tzviya, Ivan
15:00:25 <lrosenth> lrosenth has joined #dpub-loc
15:00:46 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:00:59 <lrosenth> present+ Leonard_Rosenthol
15:01:54 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #dpub-loc
15:02:44 <mgylling> mgylling has joined #dpub-loc
15:04:06 <lrosenth> ah - I had a ‘-‘ between the two parts
15:06:58 <Daniel_Weck> Daniel_Weck has joined #dpub-loc
15:07:00 <Daniel_Weck> present+
15:07:13 <rdeltour> scribenick rdeltour
15:07:30 <rdeltour> present +
15:07:34 <mgylling> present+ Markus_Gylling
15:07:57 <rdeltour> ben: lots of open issues https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues
15:08:08 <rdeltour> ... let's try to agree on the server-side/client-side thing
15:08:19 <rdeltour> ivan: I think we are in agreement
15:08:33 <rdeltour> leonard: I think if we get rid of this one fragment it's OK
15:09:09 <rdeltour> ... remove the sentence at the end of the definition of server "this is not defined by this doc"
15:09:15 <rdeltour> tzviya: why?
15:09:38 <rdeltour> leonard: I don't think we've decided that as a statement yet
15:09:48 <rdeltour> ivan: ok, so it's an editting change to the doc
15:09:58 <rdeltour> ... all the other issues are now formally on the issue list.
15:10:06 <rdeltour> ... let's look at the list of issues on the tracker
15:10:34 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #dpub-loc
15:10:36 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/3
15:10:37 <rdeltour> ben: let's follow the tracker's order
15:10:54 <rdeltour> topic: issue #3
15:11:16 <rdeltour> ivan: these are 2 different issues
15:11:21 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/4
15:11:27 <rdeltour> ... for me, I think that the answer is an absolute yes
15:11:41 <rdeltour> ... the package and unpackaged state s/b identical in terms of the structure
15:11:59 <rdeltour> leonard: I agree, everything else is gonna complicate things
15:12:05 <bjdmeest> q?
15:12:18 <rdeltour> ... the only thing to remember is that ZIP is a conceptual hierearchy
15:12:27 <rdeltour> ivan: right, we don't even need to know that
15:12:42 <rdeltour> ben: ok closed.
15:13:20 <rdeltour> topic: issue #4
15:13:36 <rdeltour> ivan: that's a much less obvious thing
15:13:52 <rdeltour> ... pwp is not necessarilty a hierarchical tree in my view
15:14:00 <rdeltour> leonard: right, just like a website
15:14:21 <rdeltour> ivan: we have to leave this issue open, postpone it. then we have to look at the way a PWP processor would take care of that
15:14:52 <rdeltour> ... the current desc is based on the approach that out of the locator you get the base URL, then when you want a specific resource you extrapolate on the base URL
15:15:10 <rdeltour> ... what we may have at the end is that the manifest can also include some kind of URL mapping
15:15:22 <tzviya> q+
15:15:48 <rdeltour> leonard: I think that having hierarchy doesn't matter. A locator to a resource is just base+name, it doesn't change the implementation.
15:16:08 <rdeltour> ivan: what happens if the PWP has resources that are on 2 different domains?
15:16:21 <rdeltour> leonard: that has nothing to do with the hierarchy.
15:16:32 <rdeltour> ... we haven't specified what the syntax looks like
15:16:51 <rdeltour> ... just like a website, if you want to reference things on other domain you just use absolute URLs to another domain
15:16:56 <rdeltour> ivan: ok
15:17:03 <bjdmeest> q?
15:17:13 <bjdmeest> ack tzviya
15:17:52 <rdeltour> tzviya: perhaps we need to decide in the PWP if we need a hierarchy, before we look at the locators. It's almost a philisopohical matter.
15:18:00 <rdeltour> ... we need to have that discussion at the PWP level
15:18:11 <rdeltour> leonard: I agree
15:18:23 <rdeltour> ... can you bring it up on the mailing list?
15:18:34 <rdeltour> ben: so what we agree on:
15:18:52 <rdeltour> ... if we have resources in other domains we need absolute URLs to these domains
15:19:01 <rdeltour> ivan: right, you have no choice
15:19:24 <rdeltour> leonard: let's stick to that at the general non-implementation level
15:19:36 <rdeltour> ben: ok, so we're in agreement, let's close #4
15:19:40 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/5
15:19:43 <rdeltour> topic: issue #5
15:20:10 <rdeltour> ivan: my personal feeling is it's none of our business
15:20:21 <rdeltour> ... whether cache is used is implementation detail of the PWP processor
15:20:27 <rdeltour> leonard: I agree
15:20:51 <rdeltour> ben: I added that issue because we had the question whether the PWP could be updated, but maybe that's for another group
15:20:53 <bjdmeest> q?
15:20:56 <rdeltour> ... we can close #5
15:21:05 <rdeltour> topic: issue #6
15:21:09 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/6
15:21:20 <bjdmeest> https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/#pwp-processor
15:21:25 <rdeltour> ben: about the various priorities of the different manifests
15:21:48 <rdeltour> ... basically rdeltour says we shouldn't, ivan says it might be important
15:22:14 <rdeltour> ivan: there's another issue that rdeltour put on the list an hour ago abou the algorithm aspect of this
15:22:17 <bjdmeest> \me tells tzviya: ok! :)
15:22:31 <rdeltour> ... this algorithm is currently incomplete unless we define the priority of things
15:22:42 <rdeltour> ... currently it's unpredictable
15:22:51 <rdeltour> ... the priority is part of the definition of the PWP Processor
15:23:02 <rdeltour> ... whether we do it right now or not I don't know.
15:23:25 <rdeltour> leonard: right. I think it can wait until we know better what these things look like
15:24:49 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I agree but IMO the algortihm cannot be define unless we make technical choices
15:25:13 <rdeltour> ivan: I don't think I understand, the algorithm can be defined precisely
15:25:28 <rdeltour> ... then a profile can say "if the link element is not there, then skip this step"
15:25:38 <rdeltour> ... I think the abstract specification can and has to be described
15:27:08 <rdeltour> rdeltour: would you agree that if we want an algorithm we need a list of all the technical solution? (link elemenets, link header, manifest format, etc)
15:27:30 <rdeltour> ivan: we can list the options and priority
15:27:43 <rdeltour> ... in an abstract but very precise manner
15:27:58 <rdeltour> ... we are not talking about all the manifest formats, what are the syntax, etc
15:28:23 <rdeltour> ... what we say is "the manifest includes all the locators, if they come twice, here's the priority"
15:29:51 <rdeltour> rdeltour: if you have a manifest in XML and JSON, as a payload to a GET request, you need to know the priority in the algorithm?
15:30:11 <rdeltour> ivan: no, you just know that you get a manifest
15:30:30 <rdeltour> ... there's an underlying assumption that the content is exactly the same regardless of the syntax
15:30:48 <rdeltour> ... therefore if the manifest comes as a payload there's no ambiguity
15:31:06 <rdeltour> leonard: even if you get it through the link header
15:31:23 <rdeltour> ivan: but there you can get two different manifests, and you have to merge them
15:32:22 <rdeltour> ivan: if I get the manifest as a direct payload, I get that only once
15:34:31 <rdeltour> rdeltour: let's take a manifest linked with a link element, you can also say that it's the same manifest?
15:34:43 <rdeltour> ivan: that's not what you want, these things are not identical
15:34:58 <rdeltour> ... it gives the publisher 3 or 4 different ways to send information
15:35:23 <rdeltour> ... if I refer to the diagram I made, M1 M2 M3 can potentially all be different
15:35:57 <Daniel_Weck> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/drafts/PWPClient3.png
15:36:25 <Daniel_Weck> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/#fig-flow-get-l
15:36:26 <rdeltour> rdeltour: OK, I better understand now. I need to think about it
15:36:36 <rdeltour> ben: so we can leave this issue open and postponed it
15:36:49 <rdeltour> ... it closely relates to the algorithm
15:37:11 <rdeltour> ivan: we can postpone it in the sense that we don't need to define the priority right now
15:37:23 <rdeltour> ... but at some point we'll need to define the priority
15:38:12 <rdeltour> ... in a sense this is a use case issue
15:38:30 <rdeltour> ... the question is: how would a publisher make use of these various possibilities
15:40:45 <rdeltour> rdeltour: we need to better identify the abstract concepts
15:40:54 <rdeltour> ... currently there are 4:
15:41:08 <rdeltour> ... 1. manifest linked from the HTML
15:41:15 <rdeltour> ... 2. manifest embedded in the HTML
15:41:22 <rdeltour> ... 3. direct payload
15:41:30 <rdeltour> ... 4. linked from HTTP link header
15:41:48 <rdeltour> ... we have to define these explicitly in the Note's prose
15:42:13 <rdeltour> ivan: for me the fact that these 4 Ms have different levels mean that they are potentially differnt manifests
15:42:39 <rdeltour> tzviya: it sounds that lots of issues we're talking about today are about unresolved issues in the master document
15:43:01 <rdeltour> ... we can solve everything for locators because we have unresolved issues there
15:43:12 <rdeltour> ... ben, ivan or I need to open issues in the master doc
15:43:39 <rdeltour> ivan: it's a general thing indeed, but the way it came up is that we were looking at how to get the manifest
15:43:48 <rdeltour> ... and the situation that may come is
15:44:02 <rdeltour> ... I want to publish a doc on my web site, which may have internal information
15:44:26 <rdeltour> ... but I don't have the possibility or the permissions to open the PWP because it's packaged
15:44:50 <rdeltour> ... how do I add these extra info without changing the package?
15:45:18 <rdeltour> ... it's really a use case situation
15:45:57 <rdeltour> ben: OK so let's add this as an issue on the use cases?
15:46:47 <rdeltour> rdeltour: right, it's a known issue for the UC&R doc
15:47:03 <bjdmeest> ?q
15:47:05 <bjdmeest> q?
15:47:08 <rdeltour>  topic: issue #7
15:47:22 <rdeltour> ivan: that's a use case
15:47:29 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/7
15:47:32 <rdeltour> ... we have know 4 different ways of conveying a manifest
15:47:48 <rdeltour> ... whether there can be more or others I have no idea
15:48:00 <rdeltour> ben: the document currently says that this is not exhaustive
15:48:08 <rdeltour> ... we can leave it like this at the moment
15:48:22 <rdeltour> ivan: right. there 4 cases are the more or less obvious ones
15:48:38 <rdeltour> topic: issue #8
15:48:48 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/8
15:49:00 <rdeltour> ivan: my impression is this is heading for conneg
15:49:25 <rdeltour> ... whether a specific PWP implem is smart enough is an implementation stuff
15:49:38 <rdeltour> ... we agree that we do not require conneg, but we do not exclude it either
15:50:00 <rdeltour> ben: do we also need to specify what (?)
15:51:01 <rdeltour> ... we don't have to specify what happens for conneg, neither for client or server side, and we can close #8
15:51:08 <rdeltour> topic: issue #9
15:51:52 <rdeltour> ben: I added this issue after a discussion with Leonard, but not sure I got the idea
15:53:00 <rdeltour> leonard: the client has to be aware of how smart the server is
15:53:16 <rdeltour> ... you'd never get a pakcage as the result of a resource
15:53:32 <rdeltour> ... we haven't walked through exactly the whole process
15:53:53 <rdeltour> ... the process attempts to get thing, gets a 404 or other error, then decides to get the whole packed version
15:54:08 <rdeltour> ivan: we should not reivent the standard web mechanism
15:54:22 <rdeltour> ... there is quite a usual way defined by HTTP status codes
15:54:31 <rdeltour> leonard: I agree.
15:54:55 <rdeltour> ... the only thing we may want to specify is whether there are priorities
15:55:11 <rdeltour> ivan: I'm not sure, let's see when we write down the algo
15:55:23 <rdeltour> ben: ok, so let's keep this one open?
15:55:57 <rdeltour> ivan: I think we can remain silent. but leave it open until we do more with the document.
15:56:35 <rdeltour> topic: issue #15
15:56:41 <rdeltour> ben: I propose to do it
15:56:59 <rdeltour> ivan: I'll try to see if I can write down properly the retrieval algorithm in a more detailed way
15:57:11 <rdeltour> (that's #16)
16:00:47 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-dpub-loc-minutes.html ivan
16:00:54 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:00:54 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Tzviya, Ivan, Ben_De_Meester, Leonard_Rosenthol, Daniel_Weck, Markus_Gylling
16:00:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dpub-loc
16:01:05 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items