<scribe> scribenick: nickruffilo
<mgylling> trackbot, start telecon
<mgylling> scribenick: nickruffilo
meeting number
THEN do as normal
<pkra> +1
Markus: "slight suggestion on agenda change - so we'll switch mathematics and accessibility update."
<aylastein> *aylastein
<mgylling> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dpub-minutes.html
Markus: "OK - let's first approve last
week's minutes."
... "OK - minutes approved. Accessibility note. Two or three weeks ago
we spoke with Charles. We had some comments and some new contributors.
we wanted to check it and see if there was anything we could do to
help."
<pkra> Is there a link? Maybe even diff?
<rdeltour> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/
Deborah: "The status is that DAISY has kindly contributed some hours to polish the status of our note. We got good, non-official feedback from individuals outside of DPUB. We have some notes on how to make this better. Jean Kaplansky will be helping us out with polishing that up. Things will slow down this week as half the accessibility community is away this week."
Charles: "Peter K helped us with the math - and Romain put in some notes on another topics - so Kudos to them. Most of the holes are filled, but now we're smoothing things over - so we're in pretty good shape."
Leonard: "One thing we talked about - the requirements around accessibility were... Strongly recommended but not required?"
Deborah: "This is not strictly PWP. This is DPUB's feedback to the rest of the W3C as what we see as a GAP analysis between existing W3C guidelines and what is there - based on the needs of the digital publishing community."
<pkra> thanks rdeltour
Markus: "Charles recap'd there - not sure if we have a DIFF, but one of the new sections is 2.10 which talks about optimized publications - which is in discussion in EPUB Land [[ great vacation spot, no? ]]. This is not about universal design principal, but for a specific case like an audiobook or a braille book."
<pkra> Yes.
<pkra> :)
...: "Apart from things being slow this week - time and next step? Where
are we?"
Charles: "Once we have the finished draft from Jean, we will bring it to this group to have a formal review before we try to set up a meeting with WCAG's various groups that were suggested. Our step is to finish the document as far as we can do - and then get the group's input, then go to the W3C. Then publish it."
Markus: "Ok - so review by the IG, then
release into the W3C. Since it's just a note, there shouldn't be a great
deal of hoops to jump."
... "Peter - you are up next. I'll find the URL for Ivan's email, but if
you could start giving an introduction as to what the CG is about."
<mgylling> email CG charter draft: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Mar/0081.html
Peter: "I posted a link a while ago - with our thoughts on our own long-term solution. We also talked about Mathematics on the web in long term. The white paper sparked discussions about Math and STEM on the web. This lead to the idea that there might be room at the W3C for more of a bottom-up approach for improving the situation for Math on the web. Mostly historically because it's an old spec. It tells you what to do and you have to implement. No matter what you think of MathML, there is alot of tech out there to try to make math work. because there is tech that works - and it uses HTML, CSS, SVG, etc..."
...: "The goal is to bring all these developers together to provide organized feedback to standards groups and implementors on the browser's side. How to make the life of the developers easier and how to make it easier to put math and science on the web. This is what the community group - the first step - if you read the first draft of the charter there is still some work going on. This is the first of many - so it's very focused, but at the same time we want to enoucrage other groups to form - especially if we are successful. The biggest thing is resources - very few projects have resources to devote - but there are lots of projects out there - so the next step is to reach out to more potential members."
...: "For this call I was hoping to get feedback - it comes from my experience with the good things that this group has accomplished - i want to have the success that the DPUB group has had."
<mgylling> quote: “The ultimate goal is to pave the way for a standard, and highly optimized implementation architecture”
Markus: "I see quote (pasted above). Can
you please help me to understand it?"
...: "Can you give an example? Not sure I understand."
Peter: "I think this line comes from Ivan. ((channels inner ivan)) I like to say that Math Layout is solved on the web - but many people will rightly say - 'are you kidding'? It's not nice the way that math layout is being solved today. I like to liken it to the old days of grid layout and layout on the web - which evolved to flexbox, etc. With math layout, there are tons of ugly hacks, but at least they work. In the early days, you could not create HTML and CSS that made math look good. In time, the browsers improved so much that you can now produce SVG or HTML/CSS that renders beautifully. The markup is horrible - but that's the evolution of the web - we think it's a reasonable base to work on the solutions that are difficult using exisitng standards and work on making them part of the standards themselves. Get the implemented standards a little better so they can be replaced with nice clean markup as well."
Tzviya: "Part of this comes from background conversations and part comes from listening on the internet. The accessibility of Math ... is the intention of this group also to create accessible math - and other interests of STEM?"
Peter: "I think accessibility is huge - as there is no solution. For layout - there is a solution - so that things LOOK correct, but for accessibility you do not have any tools. It's the most glaring hole. I think that would definintely be - it would be a huge topic of discussion. I added this in the DPUB-ARIA note - I think there is need to talk about an ARIA module for math. When you look at assistive technologies, it's heavily tied to MATHML markup - which isn't always used. There is a huge gap that needs to be filled. Whether this is part of the CG - or whether they can help - I don't have an answer."
Peter: "The people I'd like to see in this group are exactly the people you'd want to talk to. If they don't adopt - who would."
Tzviya: "If I were writing the charter - the content needs to be machine readable - which includes accessibility. At least in the world I work for means that Machine readable trumps accessibility but machine readable MEANS accessible..."
Peter: "there's computational... so that is worth making a note of."
Charles: "Great that you're spearheading. Benetech is 100% backing you on this. Part of my new job description is 'born accessible' only way to do that for STEM books would be for Math/chemistry/etc to be accessible in a [publication]. We are on for this CG and if there needs to be an accessibility taskforce for that, I'd be interested in working with you on that. I applaud you for starting this. Thanks."
Deborah: "Change is hard - and you need a reason for change. The number 1 thing people are asking for on math is accessible math. It's the number 1 thing that publishers WANT to do with math. There really is no solution, and publishers are asking for this - so it's an important driver. Accessibility is the gap that they need filled."
Peter: "I would also put in performance - as the current hacky solutions - they actually have significant performance issues because the DOM/HTML structure you have to create is so big that it's not ideal for performance. I totally hear you."
Markus: "To summarize, the group is encouraging you to highlight accessibility more in the charter - and performance as well is something that should be highlighted."
Peter: "Thinking back I didn't put it in explicitly because I know we've talked about it in ARIA. That may have been why I didn't push so hard, knowing others were pushing for it. "
Markus: " how does your time-frame/plan look?"
<pkra> :)
Peter: "I'm would be hoping that next month I can get things rolling. The original instigators have discussed the initial proposal. I hope we can launch pretty quickly - the complexity of getting things started are pretty soon."
Markus: "One issue that I've encountered with CGs is that they often fall into obscurity and aren't easy to discover. People who often should know about things don't - so we need to make sure we help to make noise here in the IG and in the ARIA and other useful groups."
<clapierre> I would like to see periodic updates from this new group here at DPUB.
Peter: " This is my greatest concern - that in fact most of the products that do this are not well funded - so it'll be the biggest challenge getting people working on the community group and other work. I hear you and hope I can tap into the group to get the word out there."
Markus: "For those who read the text in Ivan's email. I'll point to the final sentence. What is being looked at here is not uniquely to Math itself, but to things that could compass other types of STEM topics. Worth mentioning again - as it makes a world of difference in terms of solving problems one-by-one or in batch."
Peter: "This is obviously a big one for us - the 2nd to last sentence relates to this - even mathematics - there is more room for discussion. We should find a way for others to reproduce this. People suggested the incubator group - which is a good group - but the reason why we wanted to go with a Community group is that the people who need to be involved don't seem to fit in with the incubator group which is a tech-level and more the API level. The scope of this group is orthogonal. We chose to go with a community group route for a reason. One thing we've been discussing is getting something together for the next TPAC or other meeting to get momentum."
<clapierre> +1 for TPAC!
Markus: "Use Cases... We can mention right away that Tzviya and I intend to put the use cases agenda item on whenever we can - every week until we are done - so that we don't lose traction and we can move on."
<mgylling> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr
<rdeltour> the overview wki page: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/wiki/Use-Cases-Overview
...: "Romain - you were here last week when we walked through - halfway
- the overview page at github which is link #3 in the agenda. We did
assign a bunch of new names - tzviya you were chairing last week so I
missed some - maybe Tzviya you are best to talk."
Tzviya: "We went through about half of
these and we were editing the wiki to people who volunteered. During the
week, some people posted some use cases to the list. Lets pick up the
use cases. Also heather couldn't make this week but she'll join us next
week. Hopefully Romain this is the last week you'll ahve to take on the
editor-in-chief roll. "
... "I believe we discussed internationalizion. Then we were going to
talk about social reading. So lets pick up on social reading and comment
on that as people volunteer."
<mgylling> reminder: https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-annotation-uc/
Romain: "For reading and annotations - there we quite a few comments about social reading and annotations. One is the need for a use-case with links to URLs and publications. we can use annotations. One use case is about the portability for annotations within a PWP. We can add a use case about if you add an annotation and take the publication to a different device or move offline - that is what we needed to discribe. There was a use-case about a PWP that is made of annotations - that aggregates annotations. "
Markus: "There is an annotations WG - so we can reference those documents."
Romain: "Given the first two notes in the social reading about portability and linking - they still hold."
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Use_Cases
Romain: "The use cases aren't really about annotations themselves - but what is the impact on the PWP - and how the PWP must be made so that it can be annotated. Not about how annotations can be made, but that PWPs can be addressed and annotated. We can also follow breadcrumbs of URLs - so that annotations can follow those locations."
Markus: " To be clear - there IS an annotations group - that is working ahead briskly. In terms of your scope question - what Romain said - not our problem here."
Tzviya: "They just put out a call for consensus..."
Leonard: "The key thing I agree with is that the first item in the annotations use-case has nothing to do with annotations - it's locators and identifiers and something we handle as part of that work as it is not specific to annotations or social reading - but it is disconnected. The other two - I agree that we want to ensure that we do not do anything that prevents annotations - but I am concerned that the use cases that are listed here as they are different than that. They read as if there are deep ties between annotations and PWPs. We are not necessarily sure what we are building - so we should be careful as to how we align things. But lets be careful how deep we go."
Romain: "I agree with the 2nd part - a PWP aggregating annotations means we have to know what an annotation is - so it's probably too early to do that. Our discussion needs to be independent of the annotation - but a use case might be helpful in generating generic solutions. We're not necessarily saying that we need to solve all aspects of the use case. Describing a use-case can be helpful in finding a more generic solution."
<mgylling> https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-annotation-uc/#sets-of-annotations-for-a-publication
Leonard: "We already have an externally linked document use-case, which may cover things."
<lrosenth> @dauwhe - W3C and other specs, absolutely.
Romain: "Correct - in generic terms we may be able to use that."
Tzivya: "As you've mentioned markus, the annotations group list is pretty robust - so we should just look at that."
markus: " in the meanwhile lets not assign any ownerships to this category - as we may ahve little to say. Packaging and distribution..."
Romain: "About packaging there were not any use-cases in the existing wiki, we know we want a package format but we do not know the exact things we need from them. Streamability, nestability, updatability, the DRM thing - another is in terms of authoring, whether a user can create a package using the tools she has on her computer or whether you need specialized software. We need to discuss and
create use-cases for. We first need to have a broad idea as to what we'd need in a package format."
Markus: " That could be an agenda item for
next week's call or our next face to face. It's a big area."
...: "We need to spend quality time figuring it out."
Romain: "Some of these features are constraining the technology - streamability means we cannot use ZIP."
Leonard: "Maybe it is a good topic for the Face 2 face. It may be worth while because of the complexity to farm it out to a sub-group? So they can bring it up to whole group. "
<mgylling> We added this wiki page as well for info on backwards looking feature sets: https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/OCF_Functionality
Markus: " That is a possible approach. A dedicated subgroup."
<aylastein> II have another meeting that I need to go to, and it seems that Tim is not here, can someone else (maybe Deborah or Leonard?) give a brief update on the PWP Archival Task Force?
<lrosenth> I can, unless Deborah wants to
Nick: "Make a cardboard box... That's the scope for what a 'package' is"
<aylastein> thanks Leonard!
Tzviya: "I do think this group will need to make a decision if streamability is in scope - but it might be a good idea for people to define these terms."
Romain: "The TAG had lots of notes about packaging. They explored several approaches and talked about pros and cons of different approaches. We absolutely need to look at what they did and not re-invent the wheel. "
Tzviya: "In terms of approach, we've had a few use cases that we've discussed. Between you and heather just let us know how you'd like us to handle getting those use-cases in the document."
Leonard: "if we can avoid reinventing the wheel, then we should. We do have different priorities than other groups. I believe that our goals and requirements will different from other groups that have explored packaging."
Romain: "we have to look at this from the use-case perspective..."
Markus: "I put a link to the OCF requirements - these are features put into the epub package. Good to get a look at what was the precieved needs for what was needed in the late 90s. But it doesn't address streamability or updatibility. But a nice long list of features."
Nick: "Does webapps have a package?"
Romain: "Not sure - but I think that's why TAG tackled this."
<rdeltour> lot's of info on Packaging on the Web repo's readme too:
<rdeltour> https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web
Tzviya: "I just put a link in chat - they did a review of packaging on the web. The author came and discussed with the group. Hasn't been huge uptake, but this group might be interested in picking it up and raising again. This also coupled with manifest for the web. it's not just a universal packaging discussion, it specifically raises ebooks. As Romain mentioned - we need to look at what they rejected as well as what is in there."
Markus: "It's an important topic that we need to really look hard at for solutions. Make sure they solve the needs of PWP."
<tzviya> let's also note the CfC for Annotations: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0078.html
Markus: "Tzviya will come forward as to how to move forward on this specific topic by next week. Thank you Romain - we got a little further."
<pkra> yay for NickRuffilo!