Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

31 Oct 2016


See also: IRC log


George Kerscher, Dave Cramer (dauwhe), Avneesh Singh, Alan Stearns, Ivan Herman, Heather Flanagan, Peter Krautzberger, Tzviya Siegman, Deborah Kaplan, Chris Maden, Ben De Meester, Bert, Charles LaPierre, Shane McCarron, Leonard Rosenthol, Brady Duga, Garth Conboy
Ayla Stein, Luc Audrain, Romain Deltour, Laurent Le Meur, Nick Ruffilo


  1. PWP-UCR review/questions
  2. DPUB-ARIA draft for wide review
  3. Task Forces' updates
    1. Accessibility TF
    2. CSS Task Force
    3. Archival Task Force
    4. STEM Task Force
    5. Structural Semantics Task Force

<scribe> scribenick: dauwhe

tzviya: Let's begin
... last week's minutes

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/24-dpub-minutes.html



scribe: minutes are approved

PWP-UCR review/questions

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


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

DPUB-ARIA draft for wide review

... 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

Task Forces' updates

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?

Accessibility TF

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

CSS Task Force

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

Archival Task Force

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

STEM Task Force

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

Structural Semantics Task Force

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

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/10/31 17:28:16 $