See also: IRC log
Webex slow starting
<graham_> Who is scribing?
I’ll try
<ivan> scribenick: laudrain
point ISO question
George: survey question sent, built with Avneesh and Makoto
… consensus that’es the basic quesitons we’ve got right now
<ivan> George's page: https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/wiki/ISO-Standardization-Discussion
… Bill please chime in
BillM: survey has a lot info, stress on the status quo is misaleding
… there is no default
George: makoto means that Korea has already submitted an updtade to the previous TS
BillM: this has to be clarified on a legal basis
… ok to move right now but hope this point to be clarified
… survey really good
<cristina> i am here...
George: do you we want to convert this to a survey questionnaire?
BIllM: business group and pub group
Tzviya: people won’t all respond
BillM: opinion are important
BillK: answer by someone not understanding the issues my be dangerous too
Tzviya: have a phone call with involved people?
BiilM: George’s doc is the menu, now what do we want to do?
Ivan: quesiton is 3.0.1 standardiazation harmfull to 3.1?
… the question « does 3.0.1 a standrd today harm 3.1 »? dangerous option
BillK: effect on a11y stuff?
…EPB standardization less imortant than a11y standadization
<BillM> 3.0.1 becoming a bona fide IS would harm 3.1 (therefore fostering a fork in EPUB 3) and would also take a significant amount of effort and we should not support it (BillM's opinion)
<RickJ> I am back in front of a computer (and on irc)
George: a11Y 1.0 not referencing EPUB is really impossible
… We can just take that option off
… to make it generic is out of scope
<graham_> (so to be clear, the option we are talking about removing here is, er, option 2?)
… in wcag 2.1, a couple of feature , and in sliver, is long term
…on short term, a11y associated with EPUB u-is doable
BilK: 3;0.1 vs 3.1 impact on a11Y
Ivan: does the a11y spec depends on 3.1
George: generic
Graham: 5 options on the wiki, 2 can be removed
Tzviya: option 3 too
Graham: 3 out 5 options are left
George: suvey further down helps to clarify various options
… crtical is what occurs to 3.1
Ivan: reduce the survey to that question
… if it does, no 3.0.1 standardisation
…If not, no care about ISO process
Graham: do you prefer option 1 or 5 is the binary queaction?
Ivan: standardize only 3.1, option 4
… then 1, 4 or 5
Rick: 3.1 no standard if no epubcheck!
Ivan: if 3.1 is not a standard, who will put power on epucheck
Tzviya: until epubcheck exists, no consideration on a spec.
Garth: 3.1 is not going to happen?
Tzviya: no we need contribution to epubcheck!!!
… not enough developpers on it
BillM: clear on 3.1 not happening, Makoto does see japan industry need anything in 3.1
… risk of forking
Garth: it may reality
…who cares?
Garth: change the package identifier in 3.1?
… it is just one character
George: so long talking, we should take a decision
Tzviya: explanation or recommandation and vote
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to what Tzviya just said
<cristina> I agree
<liisamk_> +1
… build concensus with the right people in a separate call
<ivan> +1
George: sction item, Makot, Dr Cho, Avneesh, Cristina, George, Luc
<garth> Hmmm… looking at “http://www.idpf.org/epub/31/spec/epub-changes.html#sec-ocf” just chaning the package identifier (back) to “3.0” might make sense. Could resolve this ISO issue too.
George: that group to report to the SC
Next Item
Rick: volunteer for testing and epubcheck
Tzviya: epubchek is more dire
Rick: we can help to epbcheck
… we do have some developers
George: Ramon spent time on a11y checker
s/Romain,/Romain/
Luc: Vincent Gros is in epucheck TF
Tzviya: testing necessary to finalize the PWG spec
Ivan: we need a champion, test suite
… some members will work on implementation, but building a test suite is a huge task
… a Web Publication test suite
… when something defined in the spec should be prepared for testing
… at that moment is not a huge task, some attentive on those problems
BillM: resources Rick has time, but not enough money for the readium Fondation
<Bill_Kasdorf> how much money would be required?
Tzviya: more suggestion?
BillM: W3C is looking to do more work on spec, but doesn’t have the fund
<Bill_Kasdorf> my question really comes down to what sort of a grant or sponsorship might help solve the problem
<tzviya> asks BillK if he knows of a funder
… W3C could be doing it but with funding from elswhrer$
George: W3C testing procedure are sophisticated, it make it more diffcuelt to find people
<Bill_Kasdorf> If it would be possible for epubcheck to carry a sponsorship credit, I think we could get a sponsor. I'd be willing to approach Apex on that basis, for example.
<garth> Interesting.
Ivan: test harness complex and not well adapted to the thing we, mainly for APIs
… it give you a framework, but you have to fill i t with something: what are the testabel things, which part of the spec?
Tzviya: sponsorship form APEX?
<tzviya> i have been reading about code sponsorship because Open Source needs sustainable resources
BiiK: W3C would be happy to blog on that
s/Biik/BillM/
Ivan: we can find a solution on that
BillK: funding Ric
Ivan: to a fairly active member of the WG
Garth: interesting: a partnership
Ivan: epubcheck for EPUB4!
Garth: we are a long way to that
… not same person on epubcheck and WG testing champion
Tzviya: check with Rick on that
next items:
EPUB Summit adjacent to the AC meeting in May (in Berlin)
Rick: coordination on those things, EDRLab EPUB summit?
<garth> I’ll less exicted about sponsorship of a testing chamion in the WG, than possible sponsorship for getting epubheck to 3.1 support. (but that may well be just me)
BillM: a following W3C pub summit in Europe in may?
… or wait for next TPAC?
… in partnership with EDRLab?
Ivan: met W3C head in Berlin office: he said he would have the date asap
… room reservaiton is difficult, starts asap
… AC meeting in Monday and Tuesday, and Friday is national holiday in Germany
… we should start conversation
BillK: essential on F2F for audience
<tzviya> +1 to BillK
… it is exactly the people we want to have for the F2F
Cristina: define the day : 16 and 17th of may
Ivan: that’s just after the AC meeting
… the week before is difficult in Germany
… having it on Friday and Saturday?
Graham: Publishers Forum in Berlin 2 weeks before
<BillM> +1 to managing that conflict with the Publishers Forum carefully
Graham: ealier bad idea
… Klopotek is running this conference
BillM: partnership with Klopotek?
… but it may be already planned
Graham: close but connected, may work
<Bill_Kasdorf> For those who don't know, Klopotek is the vendor of probably the leading title management system for book publishers
Rick: propose to a once a month meeting
<cristina> Publishers forum in Berlin will be on 26-27 April 2018
<graham_> For info, Publishers Forum is April 26-27 2018 (as Cristina said)
Ivan: practical thing: uninvited guest on that meeting. Please never put anything on public forum