Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

<scribe> scribenick: NickRuffilo

Tzviya: "Minutes to approve - would you like to approve them?"

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/08-dpub-minutes.html

Dave: "These are emmy winning"

Tzviya: "Minutes approved"

Frankfurt book fair

<HeatherF> Mute early, mute often!
...: "Karen asked to talk to the group about Frankfurt book fair. At the end of last week Ivan, Ralph and I had a conversation with our colleague (Felix Sasaki( - who is also affiliated with DFKI. Felix from DFKI in Germany, as well as the iMinds (from Ghent) have been working on FREME (an EU project). They have an opportunity for a booth at Frankfurt book fair, but it will be in the tech provider hall. They have invited W3C to be available and have a presence and co-locate, have demos, talk with people, and talk about the digital publishing interest group. My question is - whether anyone here plans to attend Frankfurt - and may have time to be able to give a few hours here and there."

Nick: "If I end up going, I'd be happy to help, but unsure if I'm going...."

Tzviya: "Can we also send this to the IDPF group"

Karen: "So yes, we want to see what sorts of resources we can commit to it."

Ivan: "It's probably worth putting it on the mailing list as well. There are plenty of people on vacation."
... "I cannot go because I won't be in the area."

Karen: "The dates for Frankfurt Book Fair 19-23 October."

Tzviya: "As Ivan said, sending to the list is probably the most efficient way. The IDPF group will also have more attendance as well."

Use case review

Tzviya: "Now, we've had a number of use-case contributions. Keep them coming. People have asked how to comment if not attending the meetings. GitHub is the best way to contribute, but email list is second best.

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#introduction

Tzviya: "Lets start with the intro."

<boris_anthony> Bill_Kasdorf: +1

Bill: "There are ample use-cases for tons of different publication types, but the introduction seems to be very book focused. We should try - in the opening paragraph - should be more generic about publications. It tends to focus on visual layout, whereas we should focus on the functionality - how different publication types require different functionalities."

<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#introduction

Ivan: "In addition, I think the tax as it is, what I miss if I am an outside reader, is something that is more precise - what is meant about a PWP. I think - at the end of the introduction, having something more formal - providing a definition, would be helpful. Not saying that should be the one, but in the PWP draft itself, we came up with a "what's our vision" "
...: "There is text we put into a frame to make it visible to say what we are talking about. It may be too long, it may need some trimming, but having something like that we could bind to something more specific."

Tzviya: "I think Ivan's point is important - one thing we've had issues with explaining to the non-epub world is that we need to explain why this is necessary. While we do not want to focus on books - the concept of a book speaks to people - so it's a good starting point. Heather is proposing we can use a google doc so we can jot some things done. Then heather can edit on the fly. We need to make sure that people understand why this package concept is so important. We need to include everything, but we need people to understand that boundedness does not get lost."

Deborah: "Lets open up to saying that it is not just books. When talking about documents that are a set - so we tend to get stuck in the weeds. A book is something that people understand - so it's equally important that it isn't just books, -- so saying "it's books as well as other things such as... magazines... etc. Package is a concept that everyone will understand. "

Bill: "It's a bunch of different documents that are linked. "

<HeatherF> If folks feel like jotting down ideas on the fly, here's the google doc we used at our last virtual interim (I saved the old stuff at the bottom)

<HeatherF> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qbyE5AncXKb77fufax8cXjtZsFmpEjI_C_-nAuym6bA/edit#heading=h.xc8db0vy4mbn

Boris: "Having worked on this with Hugh, I appreciate the feedback as these things came up in our discussions. Yes, I felt a desire to be more generic while not necessarily watering down - or not saying 'book' - it's complex content and the notion of the boundedness. When you say book - people imagine the physical item. We need to have the broadness of the content. I imagine we're going to collaborate on this."

Tzviya: "Boris & Hugh, can you take a look at this and revisit? Bill - can you provide the feedback you just did."

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#authors-and-readers-requirements

Tzviya: "Moving on - based on the discussion from accessibility - we realized we could re-organize some of the original use-cases and add some more information. Deborah, do you want to provide more detail on what you did to section 2."

Deborah: "In the early part of - the re-org of section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and the adding of a section - the reorganization of what was 'the publication should be readable in a browser & open web' was just made more straightforward. The new one that I would love some suggestions on other people - especially with people who have more skills about internationalization, privacy, security - we were talking in accessibility about the general problems - such as the horizontal dependencies - such as accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, etc. Some of these I think we are already starting to address. Some of them I have zero to say about but we have people who will address. Right now this is a thin skeletal selection - but it needs a ton of work. I hope people across the interest group will say: 'Wait - I know what to say about this' when you read a PWP, there are going to be use-casees that apply to all dependencies. This was me throwing in a sentence as a reminder."

Ivan: "I agree that we have to have something around this - but is it necessary to go deeply into the use-cases. Once you make it clear what you mean by a given term, it becomes bloody obvious. Internationalizations - we have to provide something that works in Japan as well as south america, these statements are quite obvious, but we have to clearly spell it out. But to give a usage example for internationalization may be obvious - maybe I am spoiled by the W3c, but if we take this section, make it necessary, that should be enough. The only question I have is about the technical architecture principles is a different ballgame because it is not a goal, it is a main. I would put that aside in some sense."

Deborah: "I will admit, I don't fully understand how they all work, so I copy and pasted, and I feel like some of the accessibility type ones, it is surprising how they don't always go without saying. Like the assumption that we were talking about browsers. But that is the conversation we are going to have - browsers. With accessibility uses cases, that is inadequate. A PWP can be read with a device that can read the technologies in question - and I can justify that with use cases out the wazoo. I would assume because of LtR languages, they don't go without saying for internationalizations. I just can't speak to the rest of them. Maybe not all have to be addressed, but they are not my expertise."

Ivan: "Yes, we do have to worry about all of these. What we need to do as a first step is to determine how these terms are defined for W3C. I'm not sure how activity puts it on their homepage what their goal is. I think that by starting by defining each of these and making a list, that is where this section will be - actually looking at it a little bit more, I have the idea that mobility and, it's device independence..."

Heather: "I wanted to jump in and say - Ivan, you are spoiled by W3C having an internationalization list. I lurk on the Internationalization list, and another list, and it's wildly different, so it is wildly different to people outside the list. "

Tzviya: "Ok, so this section is important. "

Ivan: "I can try to dig up what the different terms mean - and that can be a first step."

Deborah: "I can make up things about privacy and security."

Tzviya: "I remember that Baldur raised some security concerns - do we know if he'd be able to work on some security issues here."

Boris: "I know he agreed to address some things: "

Tzviya: "Deborah moved around some other things. So the fundamental uses cases got moved around a bit."
...: "I think now we jump to Ben & Leonard - who sent a google doc about the changing states."

Nick: "I have a feeling that most of those verticals are covered in standard Open Web stuff - but we should focus on PWP specific ones."

Ivan: "What we need to say - things that the web has - these concerns are also very much valid for publications, including PWP - so we can detail more about internationalization."
... "The concerns are the same - although the requirements might be more stringent for items on the web. There are examples we could find - especially for security. There might be legal issues for example about accessibility for certain content."

Heather: "I know this is just a collection of use-cases, but I wouldn't object to seeing a pointer to existing requirements. If they exist, and we might want to tighten them up - that would perhaps be more helpful."

Bill: "Just quickly - a good example is what epub is doing, the epub 3.1 spec on accessibility specify WCAG level A as a must, but another requires AA as a must. "

Tzviya: " What we did in our group accessibility note, there is nothing to explain how to handle a specification. "

Ivan: "I've put on my agenda to look at this section."

Tzviya: " We could look at Ben and Leonards changing state section."

Ivan: "I had a quick look and it's full of comments so it needs some cleanup. There are use-cases there that are actually repeating some of the use-cases we already have in the document. It would be better if we leave it open until they may have it done."

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#accessibility

Tzviya: " Ok, we move on to accessibility use-cases. I am going to ignore the link that I sent in my email, because Charles was very busy this morning. Charles do you want to walk us through the work you've done?"

Charles: "Hello. For accessibility, 9.1 - i basically in a pull request that Ivan commented on, I commented on 2.1.10 and talked about personalization, but we want to make sure that there is an accessibility item in there. Ivan is thinking - why did I need that? The reason I did that was for completeness, so that if you jumped to accessibility, you didn't think we forgot it. But that could be argued for other aspects of the doc - remove personalization and assistive reading technology. "

Tzviya: "This is exactly the discussion we had last friday. The question is - should we repeat some - so that all the accessibilty usecases are in one place?"

<boris_anthony> you mean like a a link?! ;)

Nick: "What if we have a placeholder link?"

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to cross references

Tzviya: " Concern is that it looks redundant."

<ivan> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#manifests

<Bill_Kasdorf> what Ivan did in section 5 is exactly what I meant by cross references

Ivan: "The fundamental features should generate the first set of use cases that are important. When we get to manifest, accessibility, etc, we dive into things that are not in the first wave. For example, what you write about braille is more special/specific. I know when I cleaned up the manifest section, there were a bunch of things that were eventually use-cases. If you look at section 5, what I did was started by saying 'this is what we mean in this section - there are a number of other use cases that refer to accessibility' so not have a separate section, but then go into the initial ones."

Deborah: "That is more-or-less what i was going to suggest. Absolutely it is important. Personalization is so vital to accessibility. It needs to be on it's own, but it needs to address accessibility. It's a standard way to write documentation: 'see 2.1.1 [link]' such as 'Personalization accessibility use cases have been addressed [link]'"

Tzviya: "Charles, can you handle that?"

Charles: "Yes, I also filled out 9.3 - adding alternative media - gave an introduction and gave use-cases for dyslexia, ADHD, tactile VS auditorial, a 3d object for printing for someone with poor depth perception. "

Tzviya: "We want to cut out the 'as you can imagine'"

Ivan: "I don't know what program we use to generate all these crazy names... "

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#it-should-be-possible-to-see-the-publication-in-a-paginated-view

Dave: "There was a top-level on CSS requirements for multiple content docs. All the use-cases fit more naturally in the fundamental section - so I moved some things around and did a bit of consolidation. How pagination would interact with the DOM."

Tzviya: "It's in 'fundamental use cases'"
... "We will link out to the pagination requirements. Other than that any other CSS requirements are embedded."

Dave: "Everybody needs personalization."

Tzviya: " Updates on status? Most of the people responsible are not here."

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#collections

Boris: "I added section 12. I dropped it at the bottom. I would love to get feedback on this - it was the first thing that came to mind."

Tzviya: " This might get merged with another section."
...: "Bill - this might work with your section. But thank you Boris. "

Ivan: "Who did the change on section 3? Because that sounded new to me."

Tzviya: "Perhaps ben and Leonard were faster than we expected. "

Ivan: "There are still TBD things - whomever did it used the terms of the states of the PWP document, which requires some introductory text on what we mean. This is the section Ben and Leonard are working on. Not saying it's bad... Many of the use cases we have there are around annotations. Which is good - I just didn't know who did it."

Tzviya: "It's not a good idea to work on this until Ben & Leonard have had a chance to get their edits in."
... "Next week we'll have a number of items to work on. I won't be here, but have fun without me. We have 5 minutes to talk about TPAC. But I think more important is an additional question of this document - will we have a copyedit or style edit?"
... "Heather & Nick will work on copyedit and style

<Karen_> +1 Nick and Heather

Tzviya: "This should be - This will be the centerpiece of TPAC - so hopefully we'll be able to publish this early September. It's ambitious but we have to be."

Ivan: "If we publish early September, it would be interesting to see if the technical draft should be changed and then republished. Ideally this should be done in conjunction with the UCR. But we can put in on our list for after TPAC."

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Sep_2016_F2F_Logistics_and_Details#Schedule

Tzviya: "Any other thoughts?"

bye!