15:40:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:40:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/07-pwg-irc
15:40:41 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:40:47 <ivan> Chair: tzviya
15:41:13 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2017Aug/0044.html
15:41:19 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:42:26 <ivan> Regrets: mattg, hughmcguire, garth, clapierre, laurentlemeur
15:43:11 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:43:39 <baldurbjarnason_> baldurbjarnason_ has joined #pwg
15:48:49 <ivan> present+
15:49:14 <baldurbjarnason> baldurbjarnason has joined #pwg
15:49:42 <wolfgang> present+
15:54:21 <George> George has joined #pwg
15:54:38 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
15:55:18 <ivan> regrets+ pkra, vlad
15:55:51 <ivan> present+ george
15:56:05 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #pwg
15:57:17 <Avneesh> present+ Avneesh
15:57:25 <timCole> timCole has joined #pwg
15:57:26 <Rachel> Rachel has joined #pwg
15:57:34 <jun_gamo> jun_gamo has joined #pwg
15:57:35 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
15:57:42 <Rachel> present+
15:57:51 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
15:58:12 <leonardr> leonardr has joined #pwg
15:58:18 <leonardr> present+ Leonard
15:58:21 <timCole> present+ Tim_Cole
15:58:46 <baldurbjarnason> present+
15:58:53 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
15:58:54 <rkwright> present+
15:58:59 <wolfgang> present+ wolfgang
15:58:59 <laudrain> present+
15:59:10 <ivan> regrets+ mteixeira
15:59:29 <MURATA> MURATA has joined #pwg
15:59:44 <dkaplan3> present+ Debora_Kaplan
15:59:48 <dkaplan3> present+ Deborah_Kaplan
15:59:52 <tzviya> present+
15:59:53 <ivan> present+ tzviya
15:59:53 <dkaplan3> present- Debora_Kaplan
15:59:57 <jun_gamo> present+ Jun_Gamo
16:00:05 <ivan> present+ dkaplan3
16:00:29 <ivan> scribenick: cmaden2
16:01:17 <ivan> present+ makoto
16:01:26 <Hadrien> Hadrien has joined #pwg
16:01:31 <Hadrien> present+
16:01:51 <ivan> present+ rkwright
16:02:26 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:29 <George> Dave I could call you and patch you in. Give me a number to call.
16:02:36 <dauwhe> present+ dauwhe
16:02:48 <rkwright> I always use the app, not the browser
16:02:50 <marisa_demeglio> marisa_demeglio has joined #pwg
16:03:04 <tzviya> scribenick: cmaden2
16:03:26 <cmaden2> topic: approval of minutes
16:03:32 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2017/2017-07-31-minutes
16:03:36 <HeatherF> HeatherF has joined #pwg
16:03:44 <cmaden2> minutes approved with no objection
16:03:51 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes approved
16:04:00 <cmaden2> agenda addition: tpac is in november.
16:04:10 <ivan> topic: tpac is in november
16:04:16 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/
16:04:27 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:04:27 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:04:27 <cmaden2> SalesForce is meeting in SF same time; get your hotel NOW.
16:04:29 <HeatherF> I have to book 6-8 months in advance; I already had to book over TPAC. :-(
16:04:30 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:04:35 <duga> present+
16:04:37 <HeatherF> present+ Heather_Flanagan
16:05:13 <cmaden2> topic: welcome new members
16:05:26 <ReinaldoFerraz> ReinaldoFerraz has joined #pwg
16:05:26 <cmaden2> … no new members present.
16:05:37 <cmaden2> topic: Can a publication change over time? (consensus)
16:05:41 <tzviya> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2017Jul/0084.html
16:06:27 <cmaden2> tzviya: Leonard comments, quoting Garth; see list archive.
16:06:54 <ivan> q+
16:07:13 <ivan> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2017Jul/0289.html
16:07:24 <cmaden2> ivan: I made a proposal which seemed to be OK. (linked above)
16:07:55 <Hadrien> +1
16:07:58 <leonardr> +1
16:08:00 <cmaden2> tzviya: Is there consensus on Ivan’s summary?
16:08:00 <timCole> +1
16:08:01 <duga> +1
16:08:02 <rkwright> +1
16:08:02 <wolfgang> +1
16:08:03 <leonardr> q+
16:08:04 <dkaplan3> +1
16:08:05 <ivan> proposal: WG will not deal with this problem, and acknowledges the fact that it cannot really control the changes of the WP's constituent resources
16:08:08 <jun_gamo> +1
16:08:08 <ivan> q-
16:08:13 <bigbluehat> +1
16:08:13 <laudrain> +1
16:08:42 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:08:46 <cmaden2> leonardr: It may be worth noting somewhere in the document that this is a true statement.
16:08:56 <cmaden2> ivan: This is a resolution, will be recorded in the minutes.
16:09:06 <ivan> resolved: WG will not deal with this problem, and acknowledges the fact that it cannot really control the changes of the WP's constituent resources.
16:09:35 <cmaden2> ivan: Also in that mail, there are a number of things which may need to be addressed in a separate Note, good practice on publishing e.g..
16:09:39 <tzviya> q?
16:09:42 <tzviya> ack l
16:10:11 <wolfgang> +1 to best practices note
16:10:17 <cmaden2> tzviya: We may end up doing a best-practices, or recommending another group do so.
16:10:29 <cmaden2> topic: Working definitions from Publishing and Linking  - Can we agree to link to these definitions for working draft, so that we have terms to work with?
16:10:35 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/publishing-linking/#terminology
16:10:51 <cmaden2> tzviya: It may be helpful to just point to that for our initial definitions.
16:10:57 <Rachel> +1
16:11:01 <ivan> +1
16:11:01 <tzviya> +1
16:11:02 <cmaden2> +1
16:11:03 <baldurbjarnason> +1
16:11:04 <wolfgang> +1
16:11:05 <bigbluehat> +1
16:11:05 <dkaplan3> +1
16:11:06 <timCole> +1
16:11:07 <leonardr> +1
16:11:07 <Hadrien> +1
16:11:07 <jun_gamo> +1
16:11:08 <rkwright> +1
16:11:10 <laudrain> +1
16:11:14 <George> +1
16:11:15 <ReinaldoFerraz> +1
16:11:17 <marisa_demeglio> +1
16:11:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:11:35 <ivan> resolved: the draft will use the definitions of https://www.w3.org/TR/publishing-linking/#terminology in our draft
16:11:36 <cmaden2> tzviya: Working definitions: consensus.
16:11:45 <Bill_Kasdorf> Plus we should not DEPART from those definitions
16:11:48 <cmaden2> topic: Identifiers/locators
16:11:53 <ivan> s/in our draft//
16:12:44 <cmaden2> timCole: Some conversations between me and Benjamin on how to start with this topic. Started with straightforward ideas; proposed addition to terminology section.
16:12:46 <ivan> relevant PR in github: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/pull/17
16:13:06 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:13:10 <cmaden2> timCole: Put that in a poll request (linked above). Should the PR move forward, be changed?
16:13:29 <rkwright> Does it make sense to add the definitions document to the wiki reading list?
16:13:30 <ivan> s/poll request/pull request/
16:13:53 <ivan> present+ ReinaldoFerraz
16:14:00 <ivan> Proposed version: https://rawgit.com/tcole3/wpub/8b3d570bb3c2106e2fc754119369bd4a434067f3/index.html
16:14:02 <cmaden2> timCole: What should this look like if added to the document?
16:14:18 <cmaden2> timCole: IRI, canonical identifier, locator definitions added.
16:14:52 <cmaden2> timCole: Those are in §1.6. In §3.2.1, WP *should* be assigned a canonical identifier, with some constraints givn.
16:14:55 <leonardr> q+
16:14:56 <cmaden2> s/givn/given/
16:14:57 <ReinaldoFerraz> present+
16:15:10 <cmaden2> timCole: Questions. Is IRI the right thing to use?
16:15:12 <tzviya> ack l
16:15:26 <MURATA> I have a mixed feeling.
16:15:27 <ivan> Issue on IRI vs URL: https://github.com/w3c/publ-wg/issues/21
16:15:52 <ivan> q+
16:15:52 <ivan> present+ makoto
16:16:01 <cmaden2> leonardr: I agree that IRIs are better than URLs, but it’s a hot and fiercely-debated topic within W3C. We are going to get pushback if we go down this path.
16:16:10 <MURATA> q+
16:16:10 <tzviya> ack iv
16:16:18 <laudrain> q+
16:16:49 <cmaden2> ivan: On a process level, maybe we could separate this; URL/IRI thing is general for all our documents everywhere, could be set aside and considered separately.
16:17:04 <tzviya> ack mu
16:17:24 <cmaden2> MURATA: If some people think IRI is wrong, what is right?
16:17:33 <tzviya> ack l
16:17:37 <cmaden2> tzviya: Let’s come back to this.
16:18:15 <cmaden2> laudrain: We have already started working on the metadata part, and depend on this.
16:18:39 <cmaden2> tzviya: Do we have other feedback on Tim’s proposal?
16:18:57 <ivan> q+
16:19:09 <cmaden2> timCole: The idea of a canonical identifier: how important is it for a WP to have that? Is it practical? Is it should/must? Must it be resolvable?
16:19:18 <tzviya> ack iv
16:19:26 <cmaden2> timCole: If resolvable, does it point to the manifest, landing page, something else?
16:20:11 <cmaden2> ivan: We had some preliminary discussion… Ideal world vs. reality. In an ideal world, I would say a WP must have at least 1 identifier, but in discussion, made clear that this will not happen.
16:21:00 <cmaden2> ivan: So we say a WP *should* have at least one identifier. We also said the identifier *should* be mapped to a locator.
16:21:10 <MURATA> +1
16:21:13 <tzviya> q+
16:21:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:21:43 <cmaden2> ivan: And maybe some paragraphs about why you really really should have an identifier.
16:21:56 <cmaden2> timCole: We said an identifier must resolve.
16:22:01 <tzviya> ack tz
16:22:23 <ivan> q+
16:22:29 <cmaden2> tzviya: If we don’t say must have identifier, then what is the WP doing on the Web? It’s not really on the Web if it doesn’t have an identifier.
16:22:30 <timCole> Identifying IRI concept comes from here: http://signposting.org/conventions/
16:22:33 <tzviya> ack b
16:23:05 <cmaden2> Bill_Kasdorf: Agree with Tzviya, identifier must be able to be expressed as a locator. But if there is no locator, how is it a WP?
16:23:12 <cmaden2> tzviya: I said identifier, not locator.
16:23:27 <tzviya> q?
16:23:28 <cmaden2> Bill_Kasdorf: Yes, sorry—must have identifier, must be able to be expressed as a locator.
16:23:33 <tzviya> ack iv
16:23:51 <dkaplan3> q+
16:24:07 <cmaden2> ivan: No… we separate the locator and the identifier, we are talking only about the locator now. Lack of identifier doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a locator, doesn’t mean it’s not on the Web.
16:24:09 <laudrain> +1
16:24:22 <MURATA> So, URN?
16:24:32 <cmaden2> ivan: If I transfer it, the identifier doesn’t change; a simple WP may be moved around, locator changes, but is still a WP.
16:24:51 <timCole> Identifier implies persistence; URL may change
16:24:57 <tzviya> ack dk
16:25:14 <MURATA> I believe that URI = URL + URN
16:25:24 <baldurbjarnason> q+
16:25:25 <cmaden2> dkaplan: In traditional publishing terms: a locator acts like a URL, but an identifier is more like an ISBN.
16:25:27 <cmaden2> ivan: correct
16:25:28 <tzviya> ack b
16:25:46 <bigbluehat> MURATA: sadly not... a URN is a URI...but not a URL
16:26:09 <cmaden2> baldurbjarnason: Separation b/t identifier/locator is not specific to publishing industry. Important in ATOM syndication.
16:26:15 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #pwg
16:27:02 <cmaden2> baldurbjarnason: Not just an academic/LIS thing, but practical for determining equivalence.
16:27:23 <tzviya> q?
16:27:25 <timCole> q+
16:27:27 <cmaden2> tzviya: Back to Tim’s proposal: locator is a must, identifier is a should. Agreement?
16:27:29 <tzviya> ack t
16:27:37 <MURATA> Benjamin: I know that a URN is not a URL, but it is a URI
16:28:02 <Hadrien> +1 but I still think that we should default to using the locator as the identifier
16:28:06 <bigbluehat> MURATA: right. I think I just misunderstood the intent of the "math" earlier...appologies
16:28:14 <leonardr> q+
16:28:18 <cmaden2> timCole: Use case is a single WP located multiple places. Might have 5 locators, but should have 1 identifier; else I can’t refer to it universally. DOI has workarounds, but they hinge on a single identifier.
16:28:23 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:29:04 <cmaden2> timCole: But if I want to just put up a single-page publication, I need to take advantage of that should.
16:29:25 <tzviya> ack l
16:29:31 <cmaden2> tzviya: I need to point out that we are explicitly not solving the “work identifier” problem (e.g., an identifier for _Moby Dick_ generally).
16:29:51 <baldurbjarnason> q+
16:30:11 <cmaden2> leonardr: I understand the use for should or shall on identifiers, but there are cases where there is no such identifier. Or rather, no mechanism by which the author can choose one.
16:30:15 <tzviya> q?
16:30:17 <tzviya> ack bi
16:30:17 <cmaden2> ivan: Hence the should.
16:30:20 <baldurbjarnason> q-
16:31:03 <cmaden2> Bill_Kasdorf: I like the way Tim handled this in the proposal. The locator is not a must; the identifier (which is a should) must enable retrieval of the manifest.
16:31:20 <laudrain> q+
16:31:26 <tzviya> ack l
16:31:39 <timCole> q+
16:32:39 <bigbluehat> q+ to mention that anything distributed via the Web *will* have a locator
16:33:09 <cmaden2> laudrain: Locator is pre-existent, before identifier. When you publish, you give locator. Identifier is secondary. Very simple WP can be referred to by URL; so anyone can publish WP. In certain communities (ebooks, journals), need identifier; but for simple WP, URL is given and suffices. Would be more complicated to require identifier.
16:33:14 <tzviya> ack t
16:34:03 <cmaden2> timCole: Proposal right now seems premature; should correct for the identifier, but mention of locator needs to be corrected. Benjamin and I will withdraw this, modify, and repropose by next week.
16:34:19 <cmaden2> timCole: Will say locator is must, identifier is should, if identifier exists, must map to locator.
16:34:21 <tzviya> ack bi
16:34:21 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to mention that anything distributed via the Web *will* have a locator
16:34:25 <ivan> q+
16:34:54 <laudrain> the plumber !
16:35:16 <cmaden2> bigbluehat: Anything on the Web will have a locator (by virtue of being on the Web). WPs, pre-publication, may not have their locations known.
16:35:41 <Bill_Kasdorf> thanks, Ben, that's a good point
16:36:01 <MURATA> I am wondering if the def of "Web Publication Canonical Identifier" should mention locators.
16:36:03 <laudrain> proces point is interesting
16:36:18 <cmaden2> bigbluehat: Consider if our revision process happened not on GitHub, but off-Web—no locator for those.
16:36:42 <leonardr> q+
16:36:47 <cmaden2> bigbluehat: We should make space for identifiers and locators, and allow publishers to use either.
16:37:11 <tzviya> ack iv
16:37:31 <leonardr> q-
16:37:48 <cmaden2> ivan: What we have here for identifiers is OK to go into document. We don’t talk about locator; we should, but don’t have to yet.
16:37:49 <bigbluehat> +1 to moving forward with what Tim's written--to keep the trains moving, etc :)
16:38:29 <cmaden2> tzviya: Tim wants to clean up the proposal; group would be happy to merge as-is, then clean up, or clean up first; whichever.
16:38:32 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:38:36 <cmaden2> timCole: If there’s consensus to merge now, that’s fine.
16:39:02 <ivan> Resolved: The PR #17 can be merged with some extra cleanup from Tim either before or after the PR
16:39:19 <cmaden2> tzviya: Other task forces can follow this model.
16:39:26 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/15
16:39:27 <cmaden2> timCole: And it’s probably helpful not to put too much into a single PR.
16:39:33 <cmaden2> topic: Minimum Viable Manifest
16:39:54 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/15
16:40:15 <cmaden2> tzviya: Lots of comments. What is the minimum for a manifest? We can add more later, as we understand more about what WPs are.
16:40:53 <Hadrien> q+
16:41:03 <cmaden2> tzviya: Dave thinks there are three things a manifest needs: a list of resources, an order, and an assertion of WP-ness.
16:41:13 <leonardr> q+
16:41:20 <tzviya> ack h
16:41:21 <MURATA> +q
16:41:28 <Avneesh> q+
16:41:31 <cmaden2> tzviya: (correction): List of resources in order, a title, and assertion of WP-ness.
16:42:18 <dauwhe> q+
16:42:22 <cmaden2> Hadrien: There is a difference; assertion of WP-ness can just be through assertion of media type for manifest. We always include a self link, a canonical URL for the manifest.
16:42:50 <ivan> q+
16:43:14 <cmaden2> Hadrien: Whether we need a URL for the manifest in the MVM, depends on other factors. If manifest is distributed over HTTP, then URL is provided, but if discovered through other channels, we need some way to give the URL in the document itself.
16:43:17 <tzviya> ack l
16:43:34 <tzviya> q+ to say that some amount of metadata is needed
16:43:55 <bigbluehat> leonardr: empty title's don't validate in HTML5
16:43:58 <dkaplan3> q+
16:43:59 <bigbluehat> https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea
16:44:07 <cmaden2> leonardr: Reiterating from comment thread: I don’t consider title an MVM item. If required, people will put in null titles, so it’s useless. Tried it in some PDF standards, and found spaces or emptiness.
16:44:22 <tzviya> ack mu
16:44:41 <ivan> version proposed by dauwhe: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/15#issuecomment-320699295
16:44:45 <cmaden2> MURATA; ebook 3, list all resources, even not spine items. Here, proposal mentions only primary resources; is that intentional? We won’t list secondary resources in manifest?
16:44:54 <leonardr> @tzviya - yes, validation can check that, but what happens is that users don't validate things before distributing them.
16:44:54 <Bill_Kasdorf> Makoto, I see that as a distinction between WP and EPUB 4
16:44:58 <cmaden2> tzviya: That is the proposal now, yes.
16:45:06 <duga> q+
16:45:11 <cmaden2> dauwhe: Yes, this is intentional.
16:45:25 <MURATA> +q
16:45:49 <cmaden2> dauwhe: There are situations where some reading systems might require full enumeration, but everything on the Web doesn’t need it.
16:45:50 <rdeltour> +1 to dauwhe
16:45:51 <duga> q-
16:45:51 <tzviya> ack avn
16:47:08 <cmaden2> Avneesh: A11y aspect: What is essential navigation, what is optional? Have heard comments that browser will not be able to do this or that; WCAG is not just about browser capabilities. Assistive technology should enable discovery of information.
16:48:43 <cmaden2> Avneesh: §2.4.5 deals with more than one way to access content, §2.4.7, user should be able to identify where they are. If we rely on default reading order, we miss out the hierarchy, can’t be reconstructed from reading order. Navigation must remain as an essential component of the manifest. Keep it in the essentials, unless/until we discover that some other mechanism can fulfill this.
16:49:02 <cmaden2> tzviya: Are you saying that navigation document should be in the minimal requirement?
16:49:05 <cmaden2> Avneesh: yes.
16:49:26 <tzviya> ack d
16:49:29 <cmaden2> tzviya: OK, but we are talking about the minimal viable manifest. Navigation is not in the absolutely minimal manifest.
16:49:55 <ivan> ack dauwhe
16:50:38 <tzviya> ack iv
16:50:39 <cmaden2> dauwhe: 3 quick responses: Hadrien: If there is a unique media type for the manifest, that satisfies that issue, but we may not have consensus on that. Leonard: Yes, there are untitled documents, but this is the publication WG, not the document WG. Publications need titles. Avneesh: We are still exploring the idea that a nav document could be the way to provide that.
16:51:30 <cmaden2> ivan: To Dave’s last comment: There might be other ways to find out the reading order, but this is the same as whether we use media type or not. What is the minimum needed for the manifest, abstractly?
16:52:04 <MURATA> q-
16:52:17 <Hadrien> q+
16:52:21 <tzviya> ack tz
16:52:21 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to say that some amount of metadata is needed
16:52:22 <cmaden2> ivan: We were bitten in the Web manifest doc, extension mechanism is needed. Minimum manifest can not be completely closed.
16:52:37 <leonardr> @dauwhe - yes, but consider formal vs. ad-hoc publications
16:52:37 <cmaden2> tzviya: Some amount of metadata is needed.
16:52:52 <tzviya> ack dk
16:53:10 <tzviya> q?
16:53:17 <cmaden2> dkaplan: If an issue arose here and in GitHub, where to respond?
16:53:20 <cmaden2> tzviya: here is fine.
16:53:50 <cmaden2> dkaplan: There is not a single spec from W3C that people don’t implement incorrectly. That’s not a good argument not to require things, even though they’ll be broken.
16:53:53 <ivan> +1 to dkaplan3
16:53:56 <tzviya> q?
16:54:02 <tzviya> ack h
16:55:05 <cmaden2> Hadrien: I hear you, Ivan, but if we discuss the manifest truly in abstract, what is the boundary of what we should define? We need a locator for the manifest in the list of abstract things we need. Is a11y something part of a conceptual abstract model, or a design principle?
16:55:28 <cmaden2> tzviya: We are no longer talking about the abstract model, but what we should put in our draft defining the manifest
16:55:52 <cmaden2> tzviya: Had hoped to close this issue today, but we apparently still need to pick the items for the MVM. I think some consensus is possible.
16:56:11 <cmaden2> tzviya: We need a list of primary resources. (Everyone agrees we need list of resources, not everyone agrees primary resources.)
16:56:16 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to list of primary resources
16:56:19 <cmaden2> Consensus: We need a list.
16:56:23 <dkaplan3> +1
16:56:25 <Rachel> +1
16:56:26 <MURATA> +1
16:56:27 <laudrain> +1
16:56:27 <baldurbjarnason> +1 list of primary resources
16:56:28 <duga> +1
16:56:28 <Hadrien> +1
16:56:32 <wolfgang> +1
16:56:35 <leonardr> +1 to list of primaries
16:56:37 <cmaden2> tzviya: Consensus: We need a list of *at least* primary resources.
16:56:38 <dauwhe> +1
16:57:07 <rdeltour> +1
16:57:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> -1 on secondary resources because they are more likely to change
16:57:21 <MURATA> +1
16:57:22 <bigbluehat> +1
16:57:25 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 on WP-ness
16:57:26 <cmaden2> tzviya: There needs to be some method of asserting WP-ness, though we haven’t agreed how.
16:57:28 <laudrain> +1
16:57:31 <leonardr> +1 on identification (in some way)
16:57:35 <Hadrien> +1 for WP-ness after Ivan's comment
16:57:35 <dkaplan3> +1
16:57:36 <duga> @bill_kasdorf Please comment on the bug
16:57:36 <wolfgang> +1 on WP-ness
16:57:43 <baldurbjarnason> +1 on WP-ness
16:57:58 <rdeltour> +1
16:57:59 <cmaden2> tzviya: Those two things have consensus, but no more. By next week, we need to nail down MVM.
16:58:01 <leonardr> q+
16:58:08 <leonardr> q-
16:58:12 <baldurbjarnason> I agree with leonardr on titles
16:58:13 <Rachel> +1 title required
16:58:15 <cmaden2> ivan/tzviya: Leonard is only dissenter on title.
16:58:26 <cmaden2> others support Leonard
16:58:53 <cmaden2> tzviya: Reminder: GitHub is where the action is. If you aren’t watching repos, you’ll miss notifications.
16:59:01 <leonardr> thanks @baldur!
16:59:14 <cmaden2> adournment.
16:59:19 <cmaden2> adjournment
16:59:19 <laudrain> laudrain has left #pwg
16:59:37 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has left #pwg
16:59:46 <jun_gamo> jun_gamo has left #pwg
16:59:57 <ivan> present+ BenSchroeter
17:00:22 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/07-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:00:57 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items