See also: IRC log
Rick: We have three co-chairs, myself, Cristina and Paul
Rick: this is a Business Group
... we'll talk through those points
Rick: task number one is to launch the
group; go through the charter
... that will occupy our conversation
Rick: Next is to identify things in
transition from old IDPF world and things in transition with W3C
charters
... and to identify things to discuss at future meetings
... those are the big agenda items
... we have posted it, and we'll go through it
... to help us understand the structure, I've asked Paul and Cristina to
help us go through it
Paul: to start off, we'll affirm that the
starting point is that the PBG will be led by a Steering Committee of
former IDPF board members
... propose we'll retain that structure for one year
... and then we'll determine when we'll have more formal elections of
the leadership of the PBG
... maintain some continuity of meetings, leadership within that time
frame
... Today, we want to establish our meeting cadence
... what we propose is to find a time on a weekly basis
... a day and time when most people can attend these meetings
... We may determine a less frequent cadence, but let's carve out a
consistent time frame
Rick: One point, if you are on irc
... we are going to use the queue to take part in the discussion
... please type "q+"
... it puts you in line for the conversation
Dave: I have one difficult question that
there is a current member of the IDPF board who is unable to participate
... there did not appear to be a way to have a substitute without having
a special election
... just wondered how we take over that board seat on the steering
committee
Bill: there is a charter
... please refer to the agenda for this meeting and the initial charter
... the charter was sent to IDPF and AC Reps before the combination
... there are a lot of things that make it a starter charter
... this group is now free to modify the charter
... charter says a maximum of 16 members
... it may hold a special election
... or W3C director may appoint interim members
... If this group consents for former IDPF member to continue
... then we either do an election for 2-3 extra seats
... or it can be 2; only 14 IDPF board members for 16 slots
... or we ask director to appoint someone
... or we have an election
<BillMcCoy> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/PublishingBGcharter bylaws
Dave: having a special election makes the
most sense
... to have as many people involved as possible is one of our goals
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to the special election
Dave: and doing that early is a good sign to do things out in the open
Bill: that gives an opportunity for some representatives from people who weren't in IDPF to get formally involved
Dave: I see advantages to do it that way; also involves another call
BillM: a process thing
... former IDPF members eligible for TPI
... are still in process of doing paperwork
... a couple people have not done it yet
... strictly speaking, when we get to elections, we need to make sure
people are authorized to vote
... and we should have a critical mass to have enough people on board to
vote
... so early in the context after we have our cohorts processed; maybe
after 60 dats
... have election before those people are here, may not be good
George: I think having more communication
and outreach to former IDPF members
... and to the WG
... I got a message that
... my communication was the first they heard about the meeting
... so a good outreach campaign before any election would be terrific
Rick: One open question; given that IDPF
board elected a rep from Hachette and that seat is currently hard to
fill
... do we want to make an accommodation to fill that seat, or open it up
Bill: question of how big steering
committee should be
... IDPF determined it was the individual who got elected
Rick: so with that clarify, there are up to three seats then
BillK: if individual is involved
... in Publishing BG it's the organization
BillM: one of reasons that George is
correct is that some of notices were only sent to the primary
representatives
... they were the only ones who could run
... other orgs had more liberal policies
... we may want to think about that
... I'll think about making my outreach broader
... the targeting only to the former IDPF reps is not enough; we need to
do more broad outreach
<Garth> Does Dave want Pierre's Hachette slot? If there was such a concept.
Dave: members of AC rep don't have to run
for the PBG steering committee
... I would be opposed to that
Rick: I am going to make a suggestion
... the Steering Committee is meeting after this meeting
... that we make a recommendation at our next PBG call
... about what we want to do about expansion; fill those open seats and
how to fill the Hachette seat
Glazou: charter [reads]
... individuals who served... [lost you]
Glazou: CG and future WG
... not really how the W3C works
... I find it kind of odd
... that for one year, one year will have veto power over the CG and WG
Rick: I appreciate your bringing this up
... it is extremely peculiar
... from a W3C member POV
... it is peculiar to see a given group has so much power over the CG
and the future WG
... I would respond and look for some clarification
... there are very few BGs in the W3C
... I think this is being set up similar to Automotive BG that provides
guidance
Rick: more about guidance and less about
veto power
... this is also why we want to consider if we have the right people on
the committee
Glazou: If Steering Committee can decide what CG is doing...
BillM: Responding the the authority of the
Steering Committee
... there is no other BG with a Steering Committee
... the Steering Committee's powers meet continuously
... but you are correct about those powers
... and the group has to decide when those elections
... Rick's proposal was not for a year
... at the next call of this group, we review when we have elections
... if this group decides to have elections for all 16 seats, that's ok
... or do it at TPAC in November
... no expectation for the Steering Committee being a fait accompli for
the next year
... just wanted to have some leadership gel to get things started
Rick: well said
Garth: I was going to say, most of what
Bill said
... the mission of the BG
... to Daniel's point has a fair amount of input in the CG
... and to assist and drive the WG charter
... but after that the WG is its own entity with its own power to do
what it things is right from a technical perspective
... as soon as the WG gets going, it will determine the things it will
do
George: I remember Tzviya commenting
... that we have an opportunity to develop a BG that works for the whole
publishing community
... hope everyone embraces notion that we create a group that really
benefits digital publishing throughout the world
... we have the opportunity to shape and create this in ways that would
best be filled
Ivan: The structure decisions have already
been made in the cooperation with IDPF
... not sure why are we discussing this for so long
Rick: I think we are coming to a natural
ending point
... Do we want to have the Steering Committee come back with rec; have
this group recommend elections soon; or do elections later
BIllK: this needs to be emailed
scribe: the Steering Committee decision/recommendation should be explicitly emailed
Rick: other thing Paul brought up was the
cadence for the next calls and meetings
... while we establish a weekly meeting our calendars, we may decide
that the next one or two will not happen while we gather all this
information
... Do we have preferences for times or days of the week
BillM: can we do a Doodle poll?
Ivan: yes, let's use a Doodle Poll
<scribe> ACTION: BillM to set up Doodle poll to vote for day and time of week for PBG weekly cadence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action01]
BillM: Doodle ok?
BillK: Should we wait until daylight savings?
Rick: Assuming we don't have a meeting
next week
... assume the next meeting will be some time after 1 April
... after daylight savings
... so some time on or after April 1st
<ori> DST is different in each country I think so I am not sure we should wait for DST
[Laurent LeMeur and Fernando Pinto da Silva arrive in room]
BillM: to what degree we facilitate
rolling comms, emails
... help with supplementing real-time decision making
Ivan: Some habits we have in other groups
Ivan: decision becomes valid 5 business
days after call unless there are objections
... following same approach makes sense
<ori> Decision is voted in emails?
BillM: If co-chairs want to make a
decision or recommendation before then
... or we can do that now
Rick: I am going to ask W3C staff to write up what we are describing and send it out
Ivan: It's in the WG charter
... there is a decision procedure
Rick: We should call that out
<scribe> ACTION: Ivan to identify and ask co-chairs to send decision-process language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action02]
Rick: Talk about TPI status, members,
other members who lapsed but want to reach them
... Cristina is going to lead this conversation
Cristina: We need to be more pro-active
... emails arrived to the primary representative only
<ivan> relevant part of the draft charter that could be reused: https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/#decisions
Cristina: we need to find some kind of
marketing opportunities
... to make sure the TPI eligible understand that they have a discount
rate for two years
... have more marketing communications with them
... compare the lists of who were involved
... compare the lists and make a check
... to see how we are doing
... for the IDPF
... and we also need to have more active ways to contact publishers in
general, what we are going to do, what are the possibilities; how they
may be involved
... find a way to present the organization
... it is quite difficult for someone not involved to understand the
PBG, the TPI fees, and for people outside
... have a small group to work on that
BillK: one gap in our comms
... is sending information to the one and only information to the
primary rep
... and everything gets lost in space
... if there is a way to detect if there is a positive response
... should we be more pro-active in communicating to someone else
... I know several cases where the wrong person got the emails and
everything went into limbo
Cristina: I spoke with someone from Europe
who said it was too US centric
... sufficient decision
... not just technical people but business people to help
Liisa: Would be good to have a one-page
information to people of the benefits
... having spoken with Europeans at EPUB Summit
... there is still confusion about formats
... a lot of people gave up on ebooks a long time ago
... time to help us grow something bigger
BillM: the process of on-boarding the
eligible TPI
... will now be expanded to broader and personalized outreach
... we did reach out for the IPR mailings
... we are a bit delayed but it's on-going
... accelerating and broadening the outreach to the broader community
... former, past due IDPF, others, this group could help with it
... I don't thin the benefits is targeting the TPI member
... they already have an invoice
... partly because I have not followed up yet
... I am suggesting we separate the broader marketing we need to do from
the TPI member follow ups
... there may be some opportunities to allow a few more people into TPI
if there were some billing issues from IDPF
... don't assume; send them to me and we'll work out what makes sense
for them
Rick: We have some new people join the
room
... to get on irc, use #pbg
... anyone new on the call?
... just a moment to go around
... for the new people in the last few minutes
BillK: there are partner orgs we have
collaborated with
... perhaps they can send emails out to their members to help
participate in the W3C PBG
... not to TPI people, but other orgs who can help us to recruit
BillM: or the CG members
... we have a one-page chart showing the ways you can participate
BillK: and the CG has no-cost
Leonard: put out another thought
... if you want to grow the group
... and get more direction to publishing on the web
... and if we reach out beyond where IDPF was focused
... if we focus only on traditional publishers
... an evolution of EPUB
<BillMcCoy> +1 to Leonard's comment
Leonard: we may not see the support and
growth we want
... find unique forms of publishing
... people who have never been served
... and leverage this new organizations; something new, not the
continuation of the past
Rick: well said
<glazou> +1
Rick: opening up for further thoughts?
... Ok
<George> Outreach to higher ed, where publishing on the web can be strong
Rick: two things on task number one
... a number of things have to happen before we launch the WG
... quite a few of those have timelines associated
... I'm holding up the charter
... what are the tasks that need to happen
... I've asked Bill, Karen and Ivan to walk us through the tasks and
timelines
BillM: many people have not been in the
DPub IG
... may not understand how it all fits in
... I'll start with that and then Ivan will talk about the timeline
... propose to AC to define a new Working Group
... that was agreed to as part of the combination
... the DPub IG operating for several years
... they feel that working on PWP has matured from IG to spec writing
that a WG can do
... they have created a draft charter
... it did have IDPF involvement beforehand
... Markus helped to co-author some of the early thinking
... but we want to make sure this draft charter meets the needs of the
community
... EPUB 3 CG will continue work on EPUB 3 specs
... indefinitely
... no intention that EPUB 3 work will be done by this WG
... nor will WG stop
... and charter sets the scope and boundaries for the next two years
... from timing perspective
... it's a balance of having enough input
... and doing so before the DPub IG momentum dissipates
... and they are ready to get going on spec level
... maybe Garth has another POV
... maybe rose or distorted color glasses
... or we can go to the timeline
... if everyone is in synch
Rick: anything to add?
Garth: please continue
BillK: for those not deeply involved in it
... one reason for transition from IG to WG is that an IG cannot write
specs
... IGs can advise WGs; but WGs write the specs
... is that reasonable statement?
Ivan: to be mathematically precise, IGs
cannot write standards, they can write specs
... the Digital Publishing Interest Group after many discussion
... began in December to create a first draft of a charter
... in parallel, the group finalized a use case document
... whose latest version was published last week
<BillMcCoy> https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/ Web Publications latest draft
Ivan: and a more techniical draft called
Web Publications document
... the IG found itself in a strange place
<BillMcCoy> DPUB IG input for charter: https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/
Ivan: in general at W3C
... there is a group like this IG that comes up with a charter
... comes to consensus and then puts the charter out to the W3C Advisory
Committee to vote for it
... in this case, we had discussions around the merger of the two orgs
<BillMcCoy> use cases and requirements document: https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp-ucr/
Ivan: that combination says that this
[PBG] helps to lead the discussion
... we are now at the point from a technical POV
<BillMcCoy> the input for proposed charter must be read in the context of the use cases and requirements AND "vision" document...
Ivan: we have done it, there are a number
of less technical issues to solved
... and more business-like things
... we are at the point
... where now there is another Business Group to get consensus on
certain issues
... that is where we are
... this is as far as I am concerned, the most urgent thing that this
group should do
... we worked out the optimal timing of what should be done and when
with BillM last Friday
... we'll come back to the details
... to make the main steps clear, we have to find consensus in this
group
... in advance with some of the major players in the Web industry
... meaning that we must reach out to organizations like Microsoft,
Google, Apple, browser manufacturers who have a major say
... because the whole charter is about merging the publishing and web
worlds
... that is something that has to be done
... in parallel within W3C we have to have the charter reviewed
... by the horizontal review
... that means security, accessibility, internationalization within the
team
... have to sign off
... to make sure the right things are in the charter
... the Interest Group has put in a lot of work on the Accessibility
aspect
... don't anticipate that will be a problem now
... but we have to talk to our privacy and security experts next
... for i18n we rely on our technologies; we inherit those, but may not
be a problem
... and then we officially submit the charter to the W3C management; W3M
as we call it
... then we send it to W3C reps after W3M approval
... if AC reps say yeah, we are happy
... if there are formal objections to the charter, we have to deal with
that
... for a charter to be accepted
... beyond the fact there should be no refusal
... at least 5 percent of W3C membership need to answer and approve the
charter
... W3C does not want to set up a charter of interest to only 2 members
... in this case the number for approval is about 25
... these are the usual steps
... and then we have some wishful dates
Rick: opportunistic?
Ivan: wishful
... there will be an AC meeting 23-25 April in Beijing, China
... Rick will represent all of us
... it would be great; a target to accept if we like
... by that time the charter is in the hands of the AC Reps so that he
can refer to what we propose and take the discussions
... from then on, you have the dates?
BillM: not sure if we want to go through
all those detailed dates
... then we are targeting a kick-off
Ivan: Dates work back from the AC meeting
BillM: dates are a little scarey
... to be clear, the AC Reps already have advance notice
... this happened a month ago, so the draft is already in their hands
... but to get in their hands, we would need to start the horizontal
review
... we would do that next week
... we can do that informally
... nemowashi, Japanese term
... don't want to have controversy erupt while voting is happening
... want to have those things understood in advance
... hope is to have a draft charter by the end of next week
... we realize it's aggressive
... two reasons to do it
... DPub IG has been working on it a long time
... charter is not super specific about the specs
... hope it's general enough to meet our needs
... Jeff Jaffe has asked us to comment about EPUB 4
... also some placeholders for this group to fill in, like the mission
and purpose
... we have to get those things done to get the charter complete
<ivan> Draft charter: https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/
BillM: the consequence if we don't start
voting in late April
... then we won't have charter in June to get going on
... also in honeymoon period
... AC Reps approved the combination knowing that there would be a
charter to approve soon
... better to move that charter along
... if we take advantage of this quickly enough
... this group could wait, but in our interest not to
Rick: today is the day to roll up our sleeves to get as much done
BillM: and over email
Rick: yes
Dave: I am responding to Bill's original
50K foot view of the charter
... I want to bring it back into a low orbit view
... one of the fundamental things with EPUB
... we had this approach of getting together, we write a spec and hope
people implement it
... this has led to distance between implementation reality and hope is
too far
... hope this will help reduce what we specify and what gets implemented
... the spec process requires tests and implementations
... and also working on incubating specs
... people get together and build them and see what works
... some of that is happening in our world, especially around Readium
... ideas for EPUB 3.1 are being incubated right now
... I'd like to figure out how we get out of same track where IG has
written requirements, we have a charter
... do we expect the new WG will write a spec and hope people will
implement
BillM: this will be a W3C Rec and be done
through W3C norms
... it would be foolish to write a de novis spec
... and hope they line up
... a W3C person may say let's wait and incubate this in a CG
... but I don't recommend that
... the IG charter expires in October 2017
... I also believe we start a WG
... and make it darn clear that it is not entitled to get ahead of
implementation the way IDPF did
Dave: yes, I wanted to make that explicit and figure out how to make that happen
Garth: I agree with what Dave and Bill
just said
... yes, and
... we do have the IG group going along for a while
... it is in the mood to start doing real work, not prep for work
... we had a tentative first F2F for June 5-6
... we will miss that with a pessimistic schedule
... if we stick with dates that Rick proposed, before Beijing
... we could push first F2F to end of June
... I would like to see Rick's dates be met before vacation
... and get this momentum going
Ivan: So, to refer to what Dave said
... we are getting into details
... I think the way we will have to organize the WG
... which even at W3C does not happen all the time
... from the very first day
... we should identify 1,2,3 independent implementations
... that identify and experiment with the ideas
... and test them against the reality
... we are in a good position
... there are at least two groups who could play this role
... the Readium Consortium could play this kind of constant feeback
<pbelfanti> +1 on implementation suggestions
Ivan: the other one is Rebus Foundation
... that got money to develop an open text book environment
Ivan: and they are very interested by this whole project
<dauwhe> https://rebus.foundation
Ivan: and we should find more
... Glazou says must
... I'm fine with that
<BillMcCoy> authoring tools as well - not just rendering side implementations!
Ivan: he wonders about browser vendors
<BillMcCoy> (personal comment not speaking as a team member)
Ivan: yes, we have to reach out to them
... it's not clear what they would say
... my greatest hope is that Microsoft will actually chime in here
... they are the first and only browser manufacturer with EPUB
capability in their upcoming browser
... they have made a step toward publications in the browser
... Garth has the super powers to twist the arm of the Chrome people, so
that is another source
Liisa: So, I agree with everyone
... the point I would add
... is that we need to take a moment as we move forward of WG
... is to identify the expectation of traditional reading systems
... we cannot only reference the web for them
... this has always been a problem for this community
... one of the things on the agenda is to talk about a big chunk of the
current standard @
<dauwhe> +1
Liisa: and what does not work
Rick: When you say traditional reading systems...something in the market now?
Liisa: yes, today, what we use right now
in the market
... we cannot forget that this exists; and have to drag them along
[Liisa named reading systems]
Dave: Have we reached out to Google and MS?
Ivan: I did not do that until the charter was further along and wanted to wait for this BG to look at this
Dave: I can work some back channels
... and have informal conversations, especially where informal is the
only way to have conversations
Glazou: Just one comment
... the poor parent of EPUB has always been the world of editing
environments
... EPUB spec were not implemented...
... I would suggest reaching out to all members
<garth> Daniel be great to see if you can improve your microphone sitution... we can hear, but distorted.
<glazou> we miss editing environments
<garth> Thanks Daniel!
<glazou> implementing editors allows finding discrepancies in specs
<glazou> editing is poor parent of epub ecosystem
<glazou> we have editor vendors outside of ig/bg/idpf
<glazou> we need them
BillM: I want to mention around MS and
browser support
... tease apart two things
... EPUB 3
BillM: it's what we have now, what is
there; fixed layout, reflow
... this group has to promote EPUB 3 and the future
... this agenda topic is about the future
... but also understand EPUB 3 is not a dead end and has a vibrant
future
... what comes from this group has a bright future but will take time
... expand community of adoption
... support EPUB and develop the future
... that will be a delicate balancing act
... don't want people to say we'll wait three years for what you are
doing
Dave: yes, we want their experience implementing EPUB 3 for the future as well
<laudrain> +1
BillM: to get MS involved, that's good; my
dream is to get Amazon involved
... I need to justify being in Seattle [laughs]
Ivan: One thing for Liisa around this
topic
... and it's important to realize it
... per W3C process a year or two from now
... and we say this spec is ready
... and we want to put it out as a standard
... at that point we go through Candidate Recommendation phase; and CR
has to show that it's implementable and we have to document real
implementations
... what the exit criteria are for this phase, the WG defines for itself
... at that point I would very much be in favor
... of having browser implementations
... but we should also have traditional reading systems implementing
that
... I was talking about one step earlier
... to make CR easier
... to do experimental implementations, we get to CR sooner
... and the whole CR phase becomes easier
... depends what we can achieve there
... I had in mind Rebus and Readium
... for the kind of work and feedback to be a reference implementation,
you need an agile crowd and community
... but I don't think the traditional big reading systems can do that
agile feedback all along
... if they can, it's wonderful, but I don't count on it
... Readium is the core of reading systems, yes?
Liisa: yes
Rick: not to lessen its importance, but to
acknowledge its importance; EPUB world
... is in the category of traditional tasks
... I am obsessed with the tyranny of the urgent
... so we can deal with the urgent today
Luc: quick world about what is on the
market today
... it's not millions of EPUB 3 files but millions of EPUB 2 files, so
we have to take this into account
Rick: If you were in Brussels, VitalSource has half a million EPUB 3 files
BillM: and many are fixed layout
Rick: let's set up structure for the post-meal
<BillMcCoy> in Japan you have EPUB 3 only... and many fixed layout
Rick: we'll have a working lunch
<glazou> 3.0.1 or 3.1 ????
Rick: between now and then
... we'll set up the post-lunch conversation
... please pass these around [printed draft of working charter]
BillM: in un W3C fashion, it's printed
... you can put comments on it
Rick: Look at this while you are eating
<garth> Not too many 3.1 yet... but lots of 3.0.1 now.
Rick: go to issues part
<glazou> ok garth thanks
<dauwhe> https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/
Ivan: scribbling on paper works, but not my preferred way to do things
Garth: it's alluring!
Ivan: we have this document on a GitHub
repository
... it's there and there are issues that can be raised on GitHub
... there are different groups that look at this charter...this group,
IG, AC
<dauwhe> Github Repo: https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter
Ivan: all these comments should be centralized on GitHub
<ivan> https://github.com/iherman/misc-notes/blob/master/docs/BasicGitHubContributionIntro.md
Ivan: I am perfectly aware of the fact
that there are a number of people who scream when they hear GitHub
... so I put together a document on how to submit issues and comments
without knowing what Git is
... giving issues
... you can do this without understanding
...
<BillMcCoy> and if github is STILL too hard after reading Ivan's tutorial I will still offer to accept written/email comments and transcribe to github issues (since we are on a short-fuse schedule)
Ivan: after lunch there are 5-6 issues
submitted to charter already
... some are relatively minor; some are major
... this has to be discussed and commented
... and decide how changes can be done
<George> Ivan created an excellent tutorial
Ivan: other reason I would like to do
this, is that it ensures a proper transparency of what we do
... others would question
Leonard: Ivan, quick clarification of
process
... can I assume
... that all of the issues will be taken up by the current IG for
resolution
Ivan: the issues which are there right now
... are for my taste not technical issues, more business issues
... so I would prefer this BG to take the final decision
... there may be technical issues, then it would be the IG
Leonard: Before you commit changes, I
think it would appropriate to have them reviewed in the IG
... don't commit until it is reviewed by the IG
Ivan: I understand, Leonard, and I
fundamentally agree
... I am trying to find the best way of doing it
... for me, anyone can set up a GitHub account, as described in the
document
... to be notified by any issue on the issue list
... and people in both lists should be on the watch list
... there should be no formal difference between the two
... just needs to be consensus
... I don't care where the comment comes from; the comment has the same
value
BillK: process question: is it necessary
that all process questions get resolved before it goes to the AC?
... if we have to formalize before next week?
Ivan: It's fine if there are still some horizontal reviews
Bill: we can proceed on this track without having things totally nailed down
Garth: I typically agree with Leonard, but
this time I will disagree
... the BG is driving this charter and the IG is doing the technical
work
... I hope these things Ivan will lead us through are more business
things
... and if we veer into technical areas, I agree with Leonard it should
go to the IG
Rick: and with the acknowledgment of the
IG
... that started this in absence of the BG
... agree with Garth it is explicitly called out for the BG to have the
final say
Garth: I agree with the deference
Leonard: I understand everything and
consent
... my only comment is that
... what will become the WG, which will be many of the IG members today
... they have to actually do the work
... so get more with honey, and get their agreement on that
Rick: yes, I think it's more a process question
BillM: a co-chair of IG
BillM: should be very clear in sending the
results of this meeting and suggest any IG member should also be part of
this BG group
... anyone in IG not an IE is automatically qualified to be part of this
group
... and if you are an IE, talk to the staff contact, Ivan or myself, and
we'll figure that out
... get in touch with us
... we don't want to exclude IG members
... want to make sure it includes this broader group
Rick: I think the next step is to go
through the issues
... let's have a short break
... Food is coming
... for those on the phone, we will reconvene at 12:30pm London time
... we will mute the call at the bottom of the hour
<dauwhe> <break duration="22m"/>
Rick: let's take a break
<leonardr> I have to drop as well - just in time for the good stuff!
<Rick_Johnson> I was optimistic in my timing. We will start in 10 minutes, at 40 minutes past the hour
<dauwhe> The good news is that lunch has passed user acceptance testing, and was approved :)
Rick_Johnson: Can you hear me now?
... Can you hear me now?
... Can you hear me now?
... logistics: we have room until 2:30
... we won't take a break
... if you need a break, just take one quietly
[all] lunch was delicious!
BillMcCoy: the minutes will be public
[discussion of technicalities of publishing minutes]
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues
Rick_Johnson: time for a deep dive on the issues in the charter
[sounds of espresso machine]
ivan: I've put a reference to the charter
issues in IRC
... there are 8 open minutes right now
... let's take the easy things first
... #19, which is a reminder, so we can forget about this--the fact we
have to do horizontal review
... two issues from the weekend, editorial issues
... didn't have technical content
... For those issues, could someone come up with a proposal?
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/25
ivan: #24 and #25
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/24
ivan: the people in DPUB have looked at these too much, so fresh eyes would be appreciated
Rick_Johnson: can someone do an editorial review?
Brian: BISG can volunteer
<Guest60> I'll also volunteer to help with the editorial
ivan: #21 might be easy, too
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/21
ivan: there are possible charter licenses
... we had a proposal that this should be changed
... I am not a lawyer :)
<liisamk> sorry- liisamk voluteers to help with editorial on 24 & 25
George: on issue 24 and 25, where they're
asking for language, there might be marketing issues
... sounds like branding of web publications
ivan: that's true
Rick_Johnson: I don't think we're looking for BISG to resolve those questions, but to wordsmith and bring back any issues
<Karen> Dave: On issue 21 I support using issue and document license
<Karen> ...examples to be widely disseminated and used
<Karen> ...CSS recently moved over to this license
ivan: I have no objection
... the difference is on pieces of software or software examples
<Rick_Johnson> thanks garth
ivan: the doc itself would be unchanged
Rick_Johnson: the fact that CSS uses that is strong evidence
liisamk: we should use software and doc license, and any authors should be careful they have rights for any example content they include
RESOLUTION: for issue 21, use software and document license
ivan: the next issue is more interesting, #15
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/15
ivan: which is about DRM, which we all
love :)
... the person who filed the issue didn't realize what was in the
charter
... the working group should not make any decisions which makes drm
impossible
... for example, we shouldn't say that a web pub can't use xml
encryption
<ivan> comment : https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/15#issuecomment-281638877
ivan: so this is ultimately an editorial concern
garth: it came from a realization that
EPUB today is a spec without drm, but has hooks
... I think the parenthetical is import to the industry
... we can't prohibit drm from wrapping the format
ivan: is it possible to find a wording that's more acceptable to everyone
Graham: how much more diplomatic could it
be?
... all it says is don't rule it out, it does not say it's ruled in
ivan: is there a way to answer Tantek's arguments?
garth: I don't see anything else to do on this
Rick_Johnson: let's try and see if there's a response
ivan: we have to find mutually acceptable language
Rick_Johnson: insert "while it remains out of scope,"
(Issue commented in https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/15#issuecomment-286103338)
ivan: then we have 12 and 8 are essentially the same issue
Rick_Johnson: I don't see 27
ivan: 12
<garth> g+
ivan: relationship with epub4
... we have a separate work item which is epub 4
... the only thing the text says is that it's a profile of packaged web
pub with higher a11y and reliability, and should be strict functional
superset of 3.1
... with incompatibilities minimized
... is glazou on the call?
glazou: yes, I'm here
... you want me to summarize?
... I think section 3.1 of the charter limits the future work
... I see things that are wrong, particularly the two last words
"incompatibilities minimized"
... from an implementor's point of view, even existing versions of EPUB
are not compatible
... 3.1 is not compatible with 3.0, for example
... I think this is far too restrictive, for a group that has not
started work
... we should let the wg decide
garth: I've been emailing Leonard on this
issue, and am his proxy
... this WG's responsibility for development of future epubs is part of
the merger agreement
... so we shouldn't leave epub unstated
... further down in the issue, I proposed some language
<garth> I would not be unhappy with replacing:
<garth> "a strict functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with incompatibilities minimized"
<garth> With:
<garth> "generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable"
<BillMcCoy> +1 on Garth's round tripping... I would suggest adding *lossless* round tripping...
glazou: i would also like a proposal for
the first part... "this defines a profile of PWP"
... I still don't know if that's a direction
... that the group wants to take
... we don't yet know the final direction
garth: I'm not sure of what you're
objecting to
... are you arguing against profiles?
... in Lisbon we separated P from WP
... so there could be profiles
<BillMcCoy> +1 to Daniel's desire for some wiggle room on if/what EPUB 4 ends up being ... maybe EPUB 4 will *be* the PWP in the end
garth: at least one profile will be
EPUBish
... there will be a packaged version of WP which is a successor to EPUB
3.1
Bill_Kasdorf: there's a positive virtue
for having this in this section of the charter, as it doesn't limit how
we define web publications
... we want a profile that's a successor to EPUB, but doesn't constrain
web publications as a whole
... it frees up the discussion around web publications
... and I like garth's revised wording
https://w3c.github.io/dpubwg-charter/
<glazou> thx
<Karen> [we don't hear you]
<Karen> Dave: I am really wary of the term "round tripping"
<Karen> ...to give concrete example from EPUB 3.1
<Karen> ...it's possible to have contents of packaged files serialized as JSON
<Karen> ...don't need traditional OPF file
<Karen> ...can move both ways but does not preserve the details; so is that a round trip or not?
<BillMcCoy> Bill proposes "functional" round-tripping not "verbatim" round tripping
<Karen> Garth: I understand and would be happy to put functionality in front of round tripping
<Karen> Dave: things become more possible...essentially bookkeeping
<Karen> BillK: simply a statement of fact
<garth> Or perhaps better "generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable"
Bill_Kasdorf: and the statement says "highly desirable" which is true :)
ivan: there is somewhere a statement that
says "functionally", which was always the intent
... we do need the functionality of epub3, but may be able to do in a
different way
... which might be more efficient or less redundant
... so that text is what we need
... not sure what you mean by roundtripping
garth: take an epub31 and get to the equivalent epub4 by machine
ivan: and I should be able to do epub4 to epub31
<Hadrien> same here
Bill_Kasdorf: for example, Kobo wouldn't have to re-engineer to use EPUB 4, if they (or the publisher) could automatically convert that to 3.1
liisamk: it's much better if that happens on the retailer side
ivan: I understand if that's in a profile
... I'm a bit afraid of this kind of committment, and what effect it has
on the spec
... this means that I could create a PWP with features that will never
be good for EPUB4
... I could created a PWP with complex JS that would be valid as PWP,
but I couldn't convert to EPUB4
garth: I was careful to say that there might be losses--lossless is desirable but not mandatory
Bill_Kasdorf: it could be a pwp and not a epub4
garth: PWP is fully represesentative of WP
... and EPUB4 would be fully representative, but might not downgrade to
EPUB31x
... as long it's "Desirable" and not required, we're not blocking
ourselves
<garth> woo hoo
[phone problems solved!]
garth: if our goal is to have this thing out for circulation by the end of next week, we need text
Rick_Johnson: can we copy the whole para?
<garth> "generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable"
garth: I was responding to DRM
... can someone combine that with the front change?
BillMcCoy: if PWP comes out, we might not need a third thing
garth: I like profile of WP
BillMcCoy: PWP might be EPUB4
garth: I think EPUB4 will be an instance of PWP, and there will also be a PDF-packaged version
Bill_Kasdorf: epub4, might require that
packaging be OCF/Zip
... PWP might use a different packaging mechanism
... the purpose of EPUB4 is narrowing the options
ivan: that was my understanding
... the relationship of what we do to a11y is a question
... WP in it's full generality--lots of websites together--the reality
is that we cannot say that all these resources must be accessible
... on the other hand, when we say EPUB 4 we can say a11y is a must, not
a should
... that's how it is in the charter
... and that's where EPUB4 comes in as a profile
... I'm fine with something like EPUB4 as a profile of PWP
<garth> EPUB 4: "This specification defines a profile of Packaged Web Publications that delivers a higher degree of comprehensive accessibility capabilities and reliability. This specification should be generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable."
ivan: the question is the compatibility issue with EPUB3
garth: this is the full text without the change to the beginning
Bill_Kasdorf: I like that
glazou: I would remove the first sentence
... I don't think it's useful in any way
Bill_Kasdorf: that's what keeps epub4 separate from PWP
glazou: you say it's keeping epub4 separate from PWP, but it's a profile
garth: is it a profile of PWP, or a profile of WP?
ivan: we're talking about packaging
Rick_Johnson: at the beginning, Ivan added
two things to clarify
... adding "functional" to profile
Bill_Kasdorf: it said it was a superset of 3.1, but a subset of WP
garth: I have one functional inserted there
<glazou> yes agreed
Rick_Johnson: functional profile of the general idea
<garth> EPUB 4: "This specification defines a functional profile of the general idea Packaged Web Publications that delivers a higher degree of comprehensive accessibility capabilities and reliability. This specification should be generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable."
<glazou> +1 to what Rick_Johnson said
<glazou> general idea _of_
<garth> True
<laudrain> +1
<garth> EPUB 4: "This specification defines a functional profile of the general idea of Packaged Web Publications that delivers a higher degree of comprehensive accessibility capabilities and reliability. This specification should be generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable."
<pbelfanti> +1
<glazou> what about "EPUB4: this specification is functionnally general" ? :-)
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
<Karen> Dave: This is a mild parenthetical
<Karen> ...I am somewhat uncomfortable pushing off this higher level accessibilty to a higher level
<Karen> ...wonder if we make switch to historic IDPF levels of accessibility
<Karen> Rick: not necessarily
<Karen> Ivan: restricting that feature to EPUB 4
<Karen> ...more of an example; maybe need some wordsmithing there
<Karen> ...first sentence is a superset
<Karen> BillK: Maybe delivers to may deliver
<Karen> Ivan: for exampe
<Karen> Dave: or more targeted
<Karen> ...I really want web publications in general to meet the highest standards of accessibility and not become a profile issue
garth: we have good a11y language for wp elsewhere in the charter
<garth> EPUB 4: "This specification defines a functional profile of the general idea of Packaged Web Publications that may delvier a higher degree of comprehensive accessibility capabilities and reliability. This specification should be generally a functional superset of EPUB 3.1, with functionally round-tripping to/from EPUB 3.1 considered highly desirable."
ivan: we're not sure if some of the epub-specific things can be musts in WP
<glazou> garth: nice, I like it way better
Graham: do we all of shared understanding
of the word "profile"
... we do have "subset of"
... but then some parts of EPUB31 would have to bubble up to WP
<glazou> garth: s/delvier/deliver
Graham: should the charter make that more clear?
ivan: wondering how to do that
... it's the whole aria world that's in EPUB3
... there's a separate thing on DPUB-ARIA in charter
... but there might be other features
liisamk: getting back to where ivan was a
few minutes ago
... where you expect epub to be a package
... i want the next generation to allow a package to contain other
packages
pbelfanti: or learning objects are combined
<garth> :-)
ivan: these are not epub4-specific
Rick_Johnson: should this be in the charter, or something the wg works on
liisamk: both
Graham: whether a package is recursive is a detail, but I don't disagree
<ivan> +1
garth: I want to see if we agree on the epub 4 language
<Graham> Graham = Garth in this case about recursion
Rick_Johnson: (reads new paragraph language)
<BillMcCoy> +1
[murmurs of consensus]
<glazou> +1
<liisamk> +1
ivan: we should put a comment into the
issue with this sentence
... this is what we propose, but we wait for more comments
Bill_Kasdorf: I have a comment on a11y
... web publications should align 100% with w3c recs in general, even
with respect to must/should
... for example, wcag doesn't require AA
ivan: agree
Avneesh: when we talk about a11y text for
WP, it's pretty strong
... we should comply with WCAG, but we may need to add new features in
this working group
... the new text from Garth has a "may" which is a concern
ivan: "may" at this point means we have to
discuss it at the time
... we make things harder for EPUB4 than for WP
Avneesh: I want a11y level of EPUB4 to be at least as high as for WP in general--not less, but possibly more
ivan: a WP is a collection of resources, and is itself a resource, and so can be collected in another WP
liisamk: we need clarity on how the collection is navigated
ivan: it might be in the UCR
<garth> Text added for EPUB 4 (issue #12) added to: https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/12
ivan: we might want to emphasize in the charter that the resources might themselves be PWPs
Rick_Johnson: in an effort to drive to text, we should post the possible language to the issue
ivan: there's a related issue
... the critique from Jeff on the charter which Bill got
<garth> Needed to get nailed down � thanks for helping, Daniel.
ivan: the charter itself should include
some justification for the epub4 part in the first place
... there is no introduction or motivation for EPUB4 as a deliverable
... we should add a para at the end of the goals, for these and these
business reasons epub 4 is necessary
BillMcCoy: I put that in the issue tracker
... we need to make sure EPUB4 continues in converged world
... but there are some things that are too specific for general web
publications
... but we might want to work on something like media overlays in a
broader web context
<Hadrien> iin the Readium Web Publication Manifest, we intend to separate EPUB specific things from the rest
ivan: that's not in line with what we said
before now
... we define WP and packaged counterpart
... and then we have EPUB4 as a functional profile, a restriction of PWP
... by making stronger requirements
BillMcCoy: one of those is extra features
ivan: we did not say that
BillMcCoy: this is my understanding of
what some thought were the plan
... EPUB picked a certain way to do media overlays
... WP could adopt MO, or could punt to the larger web
... it's still a profile as it's just HTML, JS, etc
ivan: the example of overlays means that
EPUB4 may have features that WP doesn't
... Jeff's point was why deal with EPUB4 in the first place
<Hadrien> in the case of Readium, MO isn't the main one, it's mostly the rendition specific metadata and properties
ivan: let's not mix the two issues
... we need justification of the EPUB4 work
... why the publishing community needs that
glazou: I would recommend this: this is a business case, which needs to be done by the BG
<garth> +1
glazou: The BG would write a short document with the business case, which we could then reference in the charter
Rick_Johnson: can you add to issue?
... the chair will coordinate with W3C (points at billm)
ivan: there's an issue Laurent put in (28)
that's editorial
... garth, are you sure you made leonard happy?
garth: leonard was happy as long as we didn't drop the idea of profiles
ivan: the last issue that I have here was
raised by BillM an hour ago
... issue 26
... should we change the name of the working group
https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/26
BillMcCoy: we called this publishing group
because some people use web tech for print
... but some people think digital publishing is a word for EPUB-like
things
... and we have a broader scope
... I was motivated by comments that we want to be expansive
... web publications is broader than digital publishing
garth: the interest group existed well
before the merger
... and the merger agreement used publishing
liisamk: all publishing is digital
... I'd argue against web because it pushes away traditional publishers
Rick_Johnson: I spent last week at CSUN
<laudrain> +1
Rick_Johnson: there was lots of stuff about WCAG renaming
<BillMcCoy> +1 to calling it the Publications Working Group (singular or plural)
Rick_Johnson: my first thought would be "Publications", although "Web Publications" is an improvement
Bill_Kasdorf: I blogged that all
publishing is digital
... the term "publishing" is all the activities, "publication" is what
gets published
<garth> LOL
Bill_Kasdorf: are we talking about the process or the result
ivan: ok with dropping digital
... i like "web publishing" WG
... I worry about publication and publishing... "publishing at w3c"
... I'm also worried about "publication" as w3c term of art
... I'm in favor of "publishing working group"
<liisamk> +1
garth: let's decide
<michaelbaker> +1
<Graham> +1 to Publishing BG, Publication WG
Bill_Kasdorf: will the word "web" get more involvement?
ivan: some say we should only standardize things related to the web
<garth> "Publishing Working Group"
ivan: for example semantic web
... is there stuff outside the world of browsers
<garth> Well, spelled correctly.
ivan: maybe web publishing is a hand towards the web people
garth: we don't want web on the front of this
liisamk: it's consistent
<garth> And we're part of W3C woo hoo!
ivan: Publishing working group it is!
... we should go through issues to make sure who has what action
<Karen> Dave: mention that I doubt Google or Mozilla would be concerned for name change
ivan: issue 28, I can do right away
... issue 27, action on Bill_Kasdorf
<scribe> ACTION: Bill_Kasdorf to put together text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action03]
Ivan: issue 26
<scribe> ACTION: ivan to change name to publishing working group in all docs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: BISG to provide editorial review of spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: dauwhe to review Chris L issue on relationshipo with CSS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action06]
Ivan: for issue 12, there's proposed text
in comment
... I can make a PR
... on issue 8, can we close referring to resolution of 12?
garth: yes
Bill_Kasdorf: let's have Leonard approve
Rick_Johnson: Cleansing Breath
[applause]
Brian: as part of editiorial review, in section 4 could we add language to list reading systems and external browsers
ivan: this is very specific around particular groups
Brian: is there a place where such text can go?
Bill_Kasdorf: I could address in business doc
Brian: more closely aligning standards to implementations by liasing with browsers and reading systems
ivan: one more thing
... can all of you read through the charter?
<scribe> ACTION: everyone reads charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/13-pbg-minutes.html#action07]
Rick_Johnson: by the end of next week everyone should read through the charter and raise any issues
liisamk: Can we use periods at the ends of sentences?
Rick: status of IG that has done yeoman's job; their charter expires October 1, 2017
scribe: I would like to ask Garth to talk about this
Garth: transitioning the activities of the IG
Rick: as we approach the charter closing, how do we address this?
Garth: chartering the group and the
technical work there is a critical step forward
... there is the work with accesibility
... we have incorporated into charter; WG will take the lead there
... but there will be documents out of the IG's work
... there will be CSS stuff that Dave is largely liaising on
Dave: does that include Latin Rec?
... that is a question
Garth: I don't know
Ivan: I take the active things
... from the IG, that's about it
... We have the ARIA work, but that is in the charter
Paul: make comment
<dauwhe> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Main_Page
Paul: discussion has been around the
activities
... want to make sure all the activities get assigned
Rick: yes, you anticipated my mind set
... I would like to ask the IG to create a doc for which of the new
three groups all of their activities should wind up in
Garth: yes, that will go into the call for
this Monday
... but I'm struggling with what else will go into it
Rick: you have until October 1, 2017
... we have hard stop in 20 minutes
... Next item on activities is EDUPub
Rick: Paul, you have a recommendation
Paul: There was a proposal
... I presented at the EPUB Summit in Brussels
... after consultation with others
... EPUB for Education, EDUPUB
... work was largely suspended due to work on 3.1 and the combination
process with W3C
... now that this has happened, we would like to reboot the EDUPUB
Aliance
... the Accessiblity features are inherited as a must
... expand vocabs; tie in @
... at least calibre part
... and base line reference with Readium Foundation
... those are the baseline functions
... and alignment of internal infrastructures
... in terms of guidelines on how to prepare contact
... and how to architect platforms
BillK: do in CG or WG?
Paul: up for discussions, but could see it in the WG
Rick: In spirit of what I just tasked IG, may I task you with providing a recommendation for where this home should be
Paul: yes
Ivan: If you want a separate WG on this...
Garth: the work of the CG
Paul: My mistake for terminology
... whatever functional body that is doing the spec development
Rick: And you will bring a recommendation
... the other transition items are IDPF focused around Accessibility;
EPUB Test.org
... and ISO filing erata
... my bent would be to task Bill McCoy for IDPF; George and Avneesh for
Accessibility and BillK for Test
Avneesh: we have spec for 1.0 out
... and @ for 1.1 within a year or so
... this is not maintenance but for further development of the
specification
... Bill McCoy suggested the CG
... Ivan suggested Accessibility is a legal requirement
... It could be in CG or WG
... EPUB3.1 is different IPR from W3C; if we want it to go into the WG
it may take more time
... that is one issue
... if it's in the CG
... the spec will not be taken as seriously
... if we had spec go forward in CG
... but in parallel it goes into the ISO standard
Rick: George, did you want to say something?
George: I'm good, but not sure where we go
either
... we do think there is more work to be done with the specification
going forward
Rick: I propose we task George and Avneesh with a recommendation to discuss where the home should be
Avneesh: If we want to go ISO route for more impact, does the W3C have a process to provide for this?
Ivan: PAS process is only for Recommendations as far as I know
BillK: epubtest.org is what we have been
calling the EPUB grid
... features by reading systems
... applications have become more complex
... one of ways is task for keeping track of all the features in all the
reading systems in all the versions has becomes too complex to manage
... we have been doing this in BISG
... do they have sytems for testing, etc.
... systems for testing, but more challenging task for managing it
... it's out of date
... I have been talking about the mainstream testing
... a separate testing activity has been managed by George and DAISY
people and that has been done consistently and well
... this activity is joint with IDPF, now W3C
... and DAISY and BISG
... so this particular Publishing BG
... needs to address what the W3C role needs,wants to own and how this
should work
... and do in collaboartion
... with other orgs
Rick: are you comfortable being tasked to bring a discussion on a future call
BillK: yes, a future call works
... if Dave Cramer could describe a similar testing as part of that
could work
Dave: we cannot do it the same way we have
been doing it
... it is really bad; we should develop as much of the Web Platform
model as much as we can, but we need to have that long discussion
Rick: Bring us more details in future
Dave: yes
BillK: yes, and a show-and-tell
Brian: I can write that up
Rick: Bill M, are you comfortable making a recommendation at a future meeting?
BillM: I think the most critical thing we
do is to balance EPUB 3 and Publishing WG
... especially in Accessibility
... critical to keep that role
... best way to do that is continued dialogue with ISO
... there is a joint WG with ISO already up and running
... it will require some work
... gov't of South Korea can streamline
... EPUB 3 should continue to mandated for accessibility
... gov't accessiblity standards need to get going now
... We need to think thoughtfully about this dualistic thing
... that it is not a Rec yet, someone in EU does not always distinguish;
they need to know it's real and solid
... I'll come back with more recommendations
Rick: last item for you Liisa
... just a few minutes
Liisa: I'll take a few minutes now
... Things come up in the industry where someone competitively starts
something where they think it's not possible with standards, and yet it
is
... one thing we have now is a retailer putting forward a proprietary
format that is possible in EPUB
... some people think the functionality they put out is not that sexy
... but one piece of functionality is missing
... a mix is that I have gone to the edge of this frame that also works
with floating pages
... so you can have an art or cookbook that renders well..
... you can do this in EPUB but there aren't references and how to's for
it
... Talking to an art publisher who said they have moved away from EPUB
... they don't want art to fit inside a box in side a frame
<grib> +1
Liisa: they don't know how to express that challgenge to use so we can helpt them
Rick: Well said; something we will need to keep talking about
Dave: Quickly, this is something I have
experienced within CSS
... this is a foundational problem and something that we should focus
our attention on
... at Readium we'll be looking at new things
Paul: to clarify, a stakeholder like that could join the CG
Liisa: like what?
Paul: the art publisher
Liisa: he has no reason to trust any of us
<michaelbaker> To @Liisa's points this is something needing addressing
Liisa: they tried EPUB and it failed
... so they stopped
... he has no reason of believing it's possible
... the spec was the problem until 3.1
<michaelbaker> Spec is not necessarily the problem, implementation often is
Paul: but the notion of how to articulate the spec, they could be helped
Rick: Could be an outreach thing?
Paul: yes
Ivan: there is a more general thing that I think is the PBG
<leonardr> And a reminder that we are NOT the IPDF or EPUB - this is new work...maybe that will help get them back
Ivan: the whole outreach around EPUB, WP
... that should not go down the drain with this new set-up
... set some example files
... I think it's the PBG that needs to organize and manage that
... once the charter is out the door, a big chunk is no longer the BG's
problem
Rick: George?
George: I think Ivan expressed what I wanted to say
<grib> Outreach is important, the only exposure some people have to EPUB is an an output option in InDesign and when their 300 page print product doesn't "look right" when they export as reflowable, then they tap out
George: some of the requirements the art
publisher has may need to be gathered by us and those types of
requirements
... need to work their way into the WG's deliverables
... hopefully enough wiggle room
Rick: let's deal with this [holds up
document]
... we are at the hard stop
<leonardr> @grib - esp. when they aren't up to date on their products....
<garth> Thanks all!
Rick: bring this first inaugural meeting
to a close
... look for emails about this charter
... post issues
... and we will have the next call after April 1 after results of Doodle
poll
<glazou> bye
[meeting adjourned]
<grib> @leonardr agreed!