Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

20 Mar 2017


See also: IRC log


George Kerscher, Ivan Herman, Rick Johnson, Avneesh Singh, Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, Dave Cramer (dauwhe), Mateus Teixeira, Peter Krautzberger, Luc Audrain, Garth Conboy, astearns, Bill Kasdorf, Vladimir Levantovsky, Matt Garrish (mattg), Carly Bogen (cbogen), Laurent Le Meurs, Karen Myers
Heather Flanagan, Charles LaPierre, Romain Deltour, Bill McCoy, Chris Maden


garth: I sent an update to the agenda, correcting the minutes URL
... minutes approved

New member intro

cbogen: I am project metadata for content metadata at Pearson

<garth> Welcome Carly!

cbogen: I came from OCLC where I worked on Library software

garth: We also have another new member from Apex, but I don't think he's on the call
... some of us were in Brussels or London last week


garth: EPUB Summit was much larger than the first one in Bordeaux
... maybe 150 attendees
... lots of talk about how epub is used
... including corporate use
... like the euro publications office, which had a low adoption rate
... there was a demo of Readium LCP

Bill_Kasdorf: note that the "L" in LCP is licensed rather than lightweight

George: Laurent posted a blog post about the event

garth: there was in interesting presentation on using EPUB as an archival format

George: Avneesh presented on conformance to the epub a11y spec

garth: then we went to London to meet at the News Building
... this was the Publishing Business Group

<Karen> +1 HarperCollins UK host and VitalSource sponsor of Publishing Business Group meeting

garth: minutes are in the agenda
... we made progress on the Publishing Working Group charter
... the other two issues were EPUB4 and how it fit with WP and the charter

<leonardr> Thinks that WG name is a bad idea...but so be it...

garth: [quotes from charter draft]
... the other issue was what to say about DRM
... the changed text is a parenthetical
... [quotes from charter draft]
... so it's like EPUB, you can have hooks for DRM but no specification about DRM
... there's new language about liaising to the BG and the CG

ivan: there was an issue from Jeff that we need a business justification for EPUB4
... Bill Kasdorf created a document, which we are referencing from the charter
... we seem to have agreement on the text in the charter about this
... as for the current status
... all these issues have been folded into the charter text, except for the DRM one
... which remains as a separate PR, pending the response of the original creator of the issue

garth: it's not a huge change

ivan: my feeling is that he will not be overly happy with the solution
... the only open issue left (apart from timeline) is there's going to be an editorial overview from BISG and Liisa
... we did get some editorial comments
... once that's done, we can create an abstract for the mission statement at the top of the charter

garth: that sounds good
... we made good progress in London
... my view is that the interest group will wind down as we ramp up the working group
... the IG charter expires in October
... so I think we should just let it expire
... so do all the things happening in the IG have homes?
... issues: liaising with CSSWG, and the ARIA accessibility work
... we do have text in the charter that moves primary a11y work to the WG
... I do want to talk about the current CSS work; I'd suggest we stay the course and do it in the WG
... before we get to that, what we're looking for is what IG stuff is not already assigned

dauwhe: Perhaps latinreq and other things can move forward as non-rec-track docs in the WG

ivan: yes, perhaps we can add a note to the charter

dauwhe: I'll try to come up with language for adding latinreq to charter

garth: sounds like we'll stay the course
... any other items we need to migrate?
... that could be pushed to BG/CG/WG?

leonardr: I have a question

<George> WCAG 2.1 and 3.0 are in scope

leonardr: the use cases doc--what happens to that?
... it's not called out in the charter

ivan: it is called out in the sense that there is a use case document
... the IG should make a final stamp on it

<leonardr> Ah, see it now under 3.2 as an optional!

ivan: and to the PWP draft, as interest group notes
... to show it's done
... if the WG feels it needs a continuation, than it can be picked up there on non-rec-track

garth: that sounds good


garth: the next topic is #6 on the agenda
... the milestones of spec creation for the WG
... Ivan did a draft
... it looks good to me, but folks should take a look
... FPWD in Q4 2017
... REC in Q4 2019
... is this insane or reasonable?

ivan: just to clarify
... FPWD--first public working draft--it's our first stake in the ground
... it's an important milestone for IPR
... the CR means candidate rec, which means the group decides consider the technical design as done
... between CR and REC there is testing, implementations, and AC review
... so they may be iteration of the CR, if testing reveals problems
... I made a pessimistic timeline
... and left a long time between CR and REC, because testing and implementation will be long and tedious
... it's really important to show interop among reading systems or browser extensions
... so that's why there's a year for the CR phase
... if we finish earlier, then everyone will be happy and get brownie points
... it's a draft I came up with in an afternoon, and it may be flawed ;)

leonardr: in general I think it's reasonable and realistic
... my only comment is that FPWDs are going to be pushing it on timing
... that's the only thing I might shift to later

ivan: one comment there, to be clear
... FPWD is a stake in the ground
... the FPWD might say, for example, we need a manifest which includes metadata, but doesn't say what metadata

<astearns> An FPWD can be filled with issues describing what needs to be done

ivan: some FPWDs have sections which are unfinished/unstarted

<leonardr> Thanks @astearns

ivan: just getting our thoughts organized on what should be done, so I think the end of the year is OK

garth: that seems OK, but I'm the optimistic one ;)
... barring disagreement on that, that was one of the remaining holes in the draft charter
... the next agenda item is open issues... are there any of these that we want to discuss?

Issues leftover

garth: the big one was the EPUB4 motivation, which is in the BG
... the rest seem editorial
... should we talk about any of these now?

ivan: I think you're right that it's mostly editorial
... but the issues may be serious
... I'd like to get input from BISG as soon as possible

garth: Brian O'Leary picked up that action item

ivan: I've asked the W3C team for horizontal review... we already have some i18n feedback
... I have a call tomorrow and will push for security review

leonardr: can we come to agreement to not act on issue 24?
... that rewrites all the terminology we've used

ivan: I think we need some feedback from Brian
... what you said you should put in a comment for that issue

<leonardr> Happy to comment on the issue

<scribe> ACTION: leonardr to respond to charter issue 24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

Avneesh: this is already in the agenda
... the a11y text that has been added
... we do not have agreement from all the people yet
... we also think that the a11y text should be integrated into the bullet points
... The group will meet this Thursday to discuss

garth: I thought some of the a11y text was moved on purpose

leonardr: it was agreed on the mailing list

Avneesh: I don't think everyone agreed

dkaplan3: we agreed to look at it and investigate

<leonardr> Gotcha on the difference

garth: that was pulled into the most recent draft. true?

ivan: yes

garth: It was agreed by this group, but not the task force

dkaplan3: no, the agreement in this group was we'd put it in a branch and then the task force would look

garth: we did have discussion in this group, and there was general consensus on one of the changes
... is it rolled into the current draft?

ivan: my recollection is that we agreed on that on a call, and then it has been rolled into the document
... and then in the short email discussion...
... we have to be careful... today I would prefer not to touch it
... there was also an i18n review

ivan: and so this text became more general, adding i18n as another fundamental principle
... so moving that text might be complicated
... my feeling is we should leave it as is
... we can discuss on email

garth: I'm blind. Can someone point me to the section in the draft charter?

leonardr: it's the last para of section 2, scope

garth: fair enough
... it sounds like there'll be a discussion of the task force, and hopefully we can find agreement

Avneesh: when are we expecting to publish?

garth: the current top of tree has this language
... along with most everything else we've agreed on over the last week
... and we now have an agenda item on how to get this to finished for AC review

Avneesh: could you please wait for the a11y task force to review?

ivan: there's a master branch; there are pending PRs on the timeline, etc.
... tomorrow, there will be more merge
... what's on the master branch is it

Avneesh: I want people to review, and if changes are needed that's fine

garth: if there need to be changes, we can discuss in the coming days
... we can open up again if needed

f2f meeting

garth: we need to nail this down
... we've abandoned hope on June 5-6
... and are hopeful on June 22-23
... timing depends on AC vote
... We want charter finalized before AC meeting April 23-25; that works timewise for late June F2F
... there is a DAISY meeting the following week in the Netherlands
... Hopefully we can do NYC

laudrain: there was also an idea to have the F2F in Paris, 25-26th

garth: that conflicts with DAISY meetings in the Netherlands

laudrain: Hachette could host at the beginning of that week

leonardr: when are daisy meetings? Monday-Tuesday?

Avneesh: It's Monday-Thursday

Avneesh: one more comment... EDRLab can co-host

laurentlemeur: we could host, but we could go to NYC

<leonardr> I have to double check the dates, but I would expect so - yes

garth: Adobe can host in NYC, and we can get Tzviya, and we just did a series of meetings in Europe
... I lean towards New York

brady: I don't know if this group has met outside the US outside of TPAC

garth: we should do a doodle poll for counts

<dkaplan3> many of us met in NYC several years ago

laudrain: I can't do June 22-23 anyway

garth: Ivan and I will discuss
... we'll get a poll for attendees, if not locations

ivan: the best thing is to have a poll which includes a reference to location

<Karen> +1 poll

ivan: does the google form allow both time and location choices?
... let's do date and place poll, and see where we are

<laudrain> +1

<scribe> ACTION: garth do do poll for meeting time and location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action02]

garth: thanks everyone. We'll have a decision on whether there will be a call next week soon.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: garth do do poll for meeting time and location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: leonardr to respond to charter issue 24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/03/21 08:41:06 $