See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: dauwhe
tzviya: Let's begin
... last week's minutes
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-dpub-minutes.html
(silence)
(silence)
scribe: minutes are approved
tzviya: our ultimate goal is having a
version of doc to send back out into the wild for feedback
... if we don't get that done today, we can work over email this week
<HeatherF> Is this formatting correctly for everyone else? http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/
tzviya: I sent some questions and a PR
<ivan> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Oct/0163.html : Tzviya's questions
tzviya: there was some email discussion
... I proposed new language for manifests
(fingertips found lacking)
<ivan> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Oct/0177.html
tzviya: leonard pointed out an issue with pointing outside the manifest
ivan: what I posted is the latest version
... which is ok with leonard and myself
tzviya: (reads definition)
... I find this confusing
... I don't know what "a mapping of the identification is"
brady: map between resource and resource in package
tzviya: the publication should include a method to identify components in the package
leonardr: what you said is not what this is
trying to address
... it's not about identification
... its about a mapping
... this URL that points out to the web, but in reality that means this
resource should be inside
... the package can be self-contained
tzviya: We have two requirements, we're talking about different requirements
leonardr: I think yours is addressed under
constituent resources
... mine isn't addressed anywhere else
tzviya: I don't agree that it's covered
under constituent resources
... the use cases in manifests and links talk about pointing to indiv.
theorems or citations
leonardr: I see what you're saying
tzviya: maybe we should clarify the first
usage example, and make it within the publication
... we could take out the phrase "in another publication"
leonardr: you're right
... the two examples are different cases
... the scholarly pub one isn't covered but needs to be
... if you're ok with 3.4 example, we should add text to address example
1
tzviya: should we break this into two?
ivan: yes
<leonardr> +1 to breaking them up
ivan: it would be hard to merge the two
things
... that is not a packaged requirement, it's a general requirement.
Should be after 2.2
... Leonard, noting the text here, but in your email you refer to mona
lisa, which is again another thing
... a resource not in the publication
... i'm not sure if we want to address
leonardr: that's the 2nd example
... same as in the email
ivan: we should cut it into two
... we have a formulation for 3.4 in the email
<leonardr> @bert - relative + base doesn't work because you could have resources that point to multiple sites (eg. the Mona Lisa example)
ivan: we have to move first example into new one
tzviya: I can do that
ivan: let's not mix up all the PRs
tzviya: going back to my email
... another Q:
... we've talked about the word versioning in section 3.1
... it's a very loaded word
... means different things in publishing and in web
... george talked about incantations
... we need better wording... iteration
ivan: iteration sounds good
<HeatherF> +1
tzviya: anyone object?
<leonardr> +1
tzviya: does iteration cover all our use cases?
george: are iterations public?
ivan: it's such a generic term
... so the question doesn't arise
... we just don't want to use a loaded term
leonardr: it's generic; may be public in 1 case, private in another
(ding)
tzviya: Section 4... 4.2 and 4.3
... it may be due to my lack of security knowledge
... are these sections not different enough from what's in the
horizontal dependency section
<leonardr> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Oct/0165.html
tzviya: and if it's not clear to me, I'm a bit worried
<leonardr> ^^ my response back on the security items
tzviya: I know Leonard argued for including
these
... we should sharpen the use cases
leonardr: did you want to sharpen the use
cases, or sharpen the descriptions?
... I thought use cases were clear
tzviya: perhaps its the descriptions
leonardr: I'm happy to take that on
tzviya: thank you
... any other comments on security section
... is Baldur here?
ivan: the only question i have
... if i look at the use case of 4.2
... is it any different from security issues taht are on the web?
... are we coming in with something that the web doesn't have?
leonardr: with respect to publications, I
don't think the publication itself is adding anything with 4.2
... but user agents that focused on publications may want to do more
than standard web user agents
... we want potentially more capabilities
tzviya: the examples are from the user
perspective, not the user agent perspective
... maybe that's the source of confusion
... we
... have had success integrating a11y use cases
... we've also had pushback from the web community on differences from
web security model
leonardr: perhaps we can move 4.2
... we can't move 4.3
... I'll need to think about where
ivan: you said 4.3 cannot be moved
leonardr: 4.3 is where we are going beyond
the web
... talking about the idea that a specific publication...
... we talked about a packaged publication, we don't have a trust model
... we don't have https certificates
... how do you establish trust in a portable publication
tzviya: then it should go in the packaging section
ivan: that sounds good
... access control remains
tzviya: george had sent some editorial comments
ivan: I'll take care of those
... I have one more question
... section 2, we moved some stuff, and I"m worried about the current
order
tzviya: I was going to do something
ivan: we can discuss it here, or leave it to
leonard and I
... i am happy to put in a more logical order
... constituent resource should be pushed up
... I'll think about it
tzviya: thanks
... in section 3 we talked about manifests going before archiving
ivan: I'm worried about having too many PRs
tzviya: leonard, can you pick up my PR, edit it, and merge it?
leonardr: should I keep them separate
tzviya: depends on the timeline
leonardr: today or tomorrow
tzviya: do it all as 1 request, then I'll pick it up
ivan: so I won't do anything tomorrow
... I'll take it up at the end
... I'll do editorial things, and then broadcast by the end of the week?
Tzviya: I think so
... the issues that leonard sent, do we want to talk about them as a
group?
ivan: leonard and I agreed
tzviya: I started to go through them
... i wanted to make sure we were looking at the same version
leonardr: I was looking directly at github
tzviya: if it's used only once, no need to
remove it
... there are lot of examples of books, we could change some of them
leonardr: I'm fine with examples, but not outside examples
tzviya: that's fine
... in section 2.2.6
... this is buffy
<pkra> still handles vampires just fine.
tzviya: buffy is deaf-blind, every morning
she downloads a newspaper, doesn't want to waste bandwidth
... currently in personalization
... leonard wants to move to constituent resources
dkaplan3: from a11y perspective, it's
customization
... this doc alternates willy-nilly between publisher focused, user
focused, user agent focus
... and this issue could be user-agent focused from one perspective, I
wrote it as user issue
leonardr: that's a good argument
... leaving it in personalization might be ok
... what threw me off was "building a custom publication"
... she just wants to consume parts of the whole pub
... she's filtering
dkaplan3: I'd prefer to rewrite than move
... because a lot of people think of personalization as simple things
like font size
... it's good to have a more complex case
... I'm ok rewriting
ivan: I like leonard's proposal
... i was worried about building a new publication
tzviya: since we're trying to keep fewer hands, can you tweak the wording
leonardr: sure
dkaplan3: that's fine
<ShaneM> This is definitely a p10n use case in that lots of users might not wwant the videos!
tzviya: scanning through issues
<leonardr> sorry - @dkaplan3, though that was @heather who was raising the issue!
tzviya: in the last round, I put in a
separate thing on manifest
... the requirement itself is relevant
... it's part of the distribution, logically speaking, but it's also
part of the publication
... keeping it in section 2 is better
... OK
... my constituent resources thing might end up in this section
ivan: I don't think so
... the other comments were more about rearranging
tzviya: if anyone has additional comments, discuss on email
<HeatherF> Ha!
<HeatherF> Heather goes to Seoul for the IETF
ivan: order is leonard, tzviya, myself
tzviya:
... I have a newer version than is in the agenda
<tzviya> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/dpub-cr/aria/dpub.html
tzviya: still wonky in FF
ShaneM: (expletive deleted)
tzviya: work on this started two years ago
... this is a vocab for publishing industry using ARIA syntax
... with explicit mappings to a11y APIs
... used epub:type as starting point, narrowed to 30 terms
... we're ready for CR
<clapierre> Yeah!
tzviya: sending it here is part of "wide
review"
... and we want implementations
... so we meet our exit criteria
... so tell us if you implement
... if you have the equivalent terms in epub:type, and you plan to
transition when this hits PR, then that counts as implementation,
according to THE DIRECTOR
... any questions?
george: does the aria vocab and epub:type vocab need to be mutually exclusive?
tzviya: no
... it shouldn't affect anything
ivan: this set of terms is smaller than what
IDPF has
... edupub has many more terms
... this is the first core
... we hope that it will be possible to add terms
... so that eventually, doc-aria values are replacing epub:type
... it's not yet done in this document
tzviya: we've had lots of discussions on how
to make this vocab extensible
... we haven't picked on the task forces in a long time
... let's start with A11Y task force
... what's up? how's it going?
clapierre: we're working on several fronts
... first is a11y use cases
... I think we're finished with that
... we meet once a week
... we've moved from Friday to Thursday
... we've also been talking with WCAG
... to talk about sucess criteria and techniques
... one concept is a collection of web pages
... we need navigation, reading order, a11y metadata
... we want these added to WCAG 2.1
tzviya: can I ask a question?
... some of the work in EPUB and DPUB A11Y get blurred together
... it's not a problem, but for tidy note-taking etc. I imagine it might
get confusing
... do we know what work wil happen in W3C vs IDPF
clapierre: that's a good question
... there's lots of overlap
... but dealing with WCAG it was easier to do from W3C side
Avneesh: WCAG work was done in EPUB because
of EPUB a11y spec
... and it's mostly the same people
dkaplan3: as one who isn't in EPUB
... I do get confused sometimes
... are there EPUB people who aren't in DPUB a11y
Avneesh: we are in a bit of a hurry
dkaplan3: this has been a problem for a
while
... can groups share minutes?
Avneesh: that's possible
tzviya: it might be a good idea to have
joint meetings
... especially if you're meeting with wcag
... dkaplan3 would be a great resource when meeting with wcag
... anything you need resource-wise?
dkaplan3: we should continue meeting
... I don't believe we are under-resourced
... but once the UCR doc is done, we'll want to re-address
... what our next main purpose is
clapierre: I agree with all of that
... we do have lots of people in our meetings, which is great
... we have lots we can do with
tzviya: I can make a suggestion
... the WAI IG puts out calls for participation
... they want help with CSS a11y task force
... (cough, Deborah)
George: one of the big items is with WCAG
success criteria
... wer're introducing web publication as a term
... then the criteria apply to that term
<astearns> If you can help with CSS a11y Rossen Atanassov would be a good person to contact
George: I think it's a good thing to do
tzviya: sounds like you can work this out in your meetings
dauwhe: I have a task force?
<leonardr> I'm also happy to volunteer...
dauwhe: not much has happened recently
<George> George must leave, have a great day
tzviya: is Tim here?
... are any archive folks here?
leonardr: we have not met recently
... I'm not aware of action items
... I'd suggest putting it away
tzviya: STEM
pkra: we haven't met lately
tzviya: should you continue meeting?
... has work shifted to math on the web group
pkra: I don't think there's enough interest right now
tzviya: so we should close task force
pkra: yes
tzviya: I was leading the structural
semantics task force, which led to dpub-aria vocab
... I want to close that down after that publishes
<ShaneM> yay on closing it down!
tzviya: for new terms, like education, we can maybe work with a11y task force?
<clapierre> Sounds good to me :)
ivan: that one is special because the work
with ARIA WG will lead to formal REC
... in a sense, the discussion that we'll have to have
... if we want to charter a digital pub working group
... I wonder if this wg should have responsibility of co-editing new
terms
tzviya: that's fine; I just don't want perpetual meetings
ivan: I'm not sure pushing the next version to ARIA WG is a good approach
tzviya: that makes sense
... as part of chartering, we want to make sure the group is part of the
authoring process
ivan: maybe Shane knows; there have been
other WGs with joint task forces with ARIA
... not sure what current status is
... joint deliverables of two working groups are always complicated
tzviya: It was a hot topic with web apps charter
ShaneM: so web apps is responsible for a11y
deliverable
... for svg it's not done yet
... but I think the task force will go away
ivan: things to remember when a-chartering-we-will-go
tzviya: thanks everyone
ivan: Europeans beware, the time changes in the US
<HeatherF> Thanks all!
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon