Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

tzviya: don't forget to present+ yourself!
... we're still waiting on various action items (edits) as well

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/05-DPUB-minutes.html

tzviya: minutes approved
... we were discussing locators, for those of you who weren't on the call or forgot

Welcome Rick Johnson, VitalSource/Ingram

<garth> Welcome Rick! :-)

<Karen> Welcome, Rick!

<ivan> Welcome Rick

Rick: VitalSource has done a lot working on the EPUB spec

Locators in PWP

lrosenth: Nick and Leonard did not connect last week; would like an extension to their action item deadline

tzviya: would people be available to meet next week?
... on the 19th; will not meet the two weeks after that

<ivan> +1

<Avneesh> +1

+1

<brady_duga> -1

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1

<astearns> +1

<RickJohnson> -1

<cmaden2> +1

<Karen> +1

<Bert> +1

<clapierre1> +1

<garth> -1

<pkra> audio issues. brb

tzviya: we should probably meet

ivan: meeting on the 19th is fine, but will be starting vacation through to January on the 20th (which has implications re: action items)

tzviya: meet on the 19th, no meeting the two weeks after
... are there any comments re: locators?

lrosenth: no, hold off til next week

Very¹⁰⁰ Draft Charter

<tzviya> https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/

tzviya: Ivan, Garth, Ralph, Wendy, Bill McCoy, and Tzviya have all worked on this, but it's still very much a WIP; the parallel business group is also in draft stage

garth: this charter is very tentative at this point; the model being the group wants to provide tentative input to this group
... the business group charter is getting fleshed out now. There is some possibility that the business group charter may be reviewable this week, or soon thereafter

tzviya: if there are no comments, will be in shock

leonardr: still believe that we should not be referring to EPUB inside the WP document
... interesting email conversation with Bill McCoy on the topic; the idea that we might work on WPs separately from PWPs, in that EPUB is an excellent example of a PWP
... whereas with the WPs we have a lot of work to do re: compatibility with existing browser world, which has nothing to do with packaging
... it can be the same group, but it should be two separate recommendations; EPUB comes into play with the standardized packing of thsoe publications for specific market segments
... feedback?

ivan: we do not disagree, even if it sounds like it.
... not sure if the comment on the PWP document that we are putting together, or if it's about the charter?

leonardr: looking at the charter

ivan: a practical reason we have to do it the way it's in the charter. It's not a technical reason; the way the merger discussion goes with IDPF means that IDPF members who may join one working group during the transition period

<leonardr> right - forgot about the WG limitation issue.

ivan: this forces us to have separate kinds of work in the same WG. Whether the EPUB WG should be in the same WG might be necessary now.
... work on the DPUB ARIA is in the same category; these things require different expertise and different people, but they still must be in the same WG
... that's why the charter is structured the way it is.
... EPUB4 is a separate work item because WP and PWP are slightly different animals, and then we get to the question of handling EPUB as a profile

Avneesh: when we talk about non W3C docs, and we talk about EPUB3, we need to specify accessibility guidelines as well
... there is a heading "non W3C documents" there is an "EPUB 3 overview" and we should add accessibility as another section

ivan: that's a small problem on how to reference things We have six documents in the 3.1 package which will be published, including the accessibility doc.
... Listing all six in this place would be clumsy. Would like to have one master reference.

tzviya: we have the umbrella spec which has all these
... the EPUB 3.1 umbrella spec covers everything in the EPUB3 family, including the accessibility spec

Bill_Kasdorf: want to address and stress the timing issue
... presuming we're drafting language for a charter, but it won't be put forward for approval until we know the outcome of the joining of orgs
... so, this WG charter needs to address the future of EPUB
... if the combination does not go forward, then the charter wouldn't be the same
... the combination anticipates that a community group would be established to maintain EPUB3.
... the charter being approved needs to say it's in scope to discuss what happens to the EPUB spec

garth: it is reflected that way in the current charter draft

clapierre1: was also going to bring up the accessibility spec doc. In addition, see that we have the ARIA module, but highlighting more the accessibility focus in the charter to say we're looking at all aspects of accessibility would be good

tzviya: what do we not already mention?
... see Success Criteria

clapierre1: Would have liked to see it highlighted more.
... to show what's in scope

Avneesh: we're already working with WCAG; right now, we're not sure what language we should use here. Depends on what's in WCAG 2.1

tzviya: the question is whether this happens in ARIA or in WCAG

ivan: tzviya said mostly what I wanted to say
... we have to be careful; in the case of a WG, if we put recommendation track work in the charter, we are accountable for it.
... at the end of the WG, we need to prove that we've done that work, and if in the meantime the work goes to another WG, then that's a problem for this WG.
... That's the big difference between an IG and a WG. A WG is more regulated.
... the section called "scope" gives you two or three paragraph general description what the work is all about. That text is right now entirely empty.
... adding some additional text on accessibility in the scope is appropriate
... but what we're focusing on now is the more formal things that we'll be measured on; what the deliverables are

<clapierre1> THANKS Yes

George: +1 to what Bill_Kasdorf had to say. Letting the community supporting EPUB know that there is a bright future with EPUB and a smooth transition roadmap is important

ivan: We will have to give more detail on the timeline for the work. That's where some of the issues that Leonard has raised will come in.
... so far, no work has gone into making these estimates. The group will likely begin with WP and PWP, and we will not do anything with EPUB 4 for the first 6-8 months.

<leonardr> ^^ agreed

ivan: It's only when we have a clearer idea about the other things that we will touch on EPUB4

tzviya: we have a LOT of publications listed here. If we're going to turn these around, we need a lot of commitment.
... We will have to divide up into TFs. Some of the work coming over from the IDPF (e.g., EPUB for education) we won't work on, but there are embedded contingencies

ivan: do we want to go into timing issues?
... (timing of when the charter will be done; what the steps are to get to done)

Garth: one of the keys driving this to conclusion is contingent on the merger and the formation of the business group; that drives this process through January and possibly into February

ivan: there is minimally four weeks of formal review by the advisory committee of the W3C to account for as well
... a WG will not be operational until, at best, spring time. Possibly not until early summer.

Bill_Kasdorf: Does that mean the IG continues until the WG is established?

ivan: because the charter uses the DPUB and UCR work as input, having those documents as clean as possible is a good thing.
... but then there is a question as to whether we want to maintain the IG for other purposes, or close it because it morphs into a WG

Bill_Kasdorf: the IG would potentially morph into the technical and business groups, depending on topic. The IG currently provides both of those perspectives.

tzviya: We don't need to solve that today, and probably don't have an answer to dates today as well.

garth: the IG wants to provide technical direction to this process, so is the best way for that to happen to offer issues in github?

<tzviya> send issues to https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues

ivan: yes

Homework for everybody! YAY!

Remember, opinions are like bellybuttons. Everyone has one!

PWP intro & abstract changes (by Dave)

dauwhe: Last Friday we discussed the PWPWP (the white paper), including issues around relative URLs
... decided to try and incorporate some of that rant into the doc (see his pull request) by rewriting the abstract, introductions, and the overview for some of the challenges
... the goals were to simplify and streamline the doc
... we have spent a lot of time on the online/offline, packaged/unpackaged questions, and those passages read like those issues were more fundamental than those issues actually are
... so wanted to focus more on what we want rather than on the mode of thinking we've really mostly worked through

<tzviya> see Dave's edit https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/pull-request-dauwhe-1/index.html

dauwhe: Portable and Packaged are not entirely identical

<garth> Good for review: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/pull/34/files?diff=split

ivan: read through the proposed text, and feel it is better than what was there. Would be happy to go ahead and merge it now

tzviya: read it this morning; would also approve merging it

<tzviya> Dave's email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Dec/0024.html

leonardr: have not had a chance to review it, but trust Dave if we'd like to merge the changes now. Note that some are controversial, mostly in terms of how we describe and address them.
... there's a lot of nuance to work through, but let's move it to the main branch and evolve from there

<ivan> +1 to leonard

dauwhe: should also mention another motivation: thinking about the audience on the web side.
... Wanted to use language less likely to inflame and confuse our web friends

Karen: a question re: audiences - to what level in the publishing industry do you think the doc is digestible/readable

dauwhe: ...
... ...
... interesting question. We have many groups we need to target, and yet those groups speak different languages. It will be hard to write a single doc that fits all the various audiences.

Karen: so the doc right now is for the profile of people on the call, or could it go up and out?

dauwhe: Haven't read it with that very good question in mind
... maybe we should have a companion explainer doc? Need to think about that

leonardr: As we continue to work on this doc, and as we decide who the targets are for this or additional docs, we need to remember that we're not just thinking about professional, curated publishing space
... we are trying to address ad hoc publishing as well (e.g., the church secretary, the administrator, anyone putting out a doc wanting others to consume it)
... we want authors as well as publishers as we consider the language here.

ivan: The document, the way it's prepared and the goal that it has, is more for a technical community than for a higher level.
... this is jotting down for a technical environment, and it's ultimate goal is to give some general direction to consider for a WG that generates a technical standard.
... we should not try to put too much into it.
... within the large technical community, we have subcommunities.
... At some point, it would be good if someone who has a better sense for describing this to non-technical people, but this one is primarily for a technical audience and we should keep it at that

tzviya: any other comments?

George: any other documents should be harmonized with this. Make sure we don't contradict in other docs we write.

<cmaden2> +1

tzviya: so, merge dauwhe's changes?

<leonardr> +1

<ivan> +1

+1

tzviya: Reminder: we are meeting again on the 19th, then our next meeting after will be the 9th of January

George: regrets for next week, and happy holidays!