16:21:59 RRSAgent has joined #pwg 16:21:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/12/04-pwg-irc 16:22:00 rrsagent, set log public 16:22:00 Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco 16:22:00 Chair: Tzviya 16:22:00 Date: 2017-12-04 16:22:00 Regrets+ vlad 16:22:00 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2017Dec/0000.html 16:22:00 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2017-12-04: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2017Dec/0000.html 16:34:35 Regrets+ jpyle 16:49:21 NickRuffilo has joined #pwg 16:54:48 baldurbjarnason has joined #pwg 16:56:12 Avneesh has joined #pwg 16:56:37 dkaplan3 has joined #pwg 16:58:22 laudrain has joined #pwg 16:58:53 jasminemulliken has joined #pwg 16:59:45 scribenick: nickruffilo 16:59:56 Present+ Luc 17:00:00 present+ 17:00:03 present+ 17:00:07 timCole has joined #pwg 17:00:10 present+ dauwhe 17:00:13 present+ tzviya 17:00:19 rdeltour has joined #pwg 17:00:20 present+ george 17:00:35 present+ 17:00:39 present+ 17:00:57 present+ 17:01:11 toshiakikoike has joined #pwg 17:01:19 present+ Tim_Cole 17:01:25 present + wolfgang 17:01:26 Ben_Dugas has joined #pwg 17:01:42 lsullam has joined #pwg 17:02:06 JunGamo has joined #pwg 17:02:10 present+ 17:02:25 present+ 17:02:34 present+ 17:02:36 Tzviya: First and foremost - do we have the new members on the call? 17:02:54 topic: new members 17:02:58 pkra has joined #pwg 17:02:59 cmaden2 has joined #pwg 17:03:05 present+ pkrka 17:03:06 Jeff: My name is Jeff and I just joined. I sent out the introductory email to the group. I am looking forward to learning more about what you're doing on WP and PWP. 17:03:07 present+ pkra 17:03:13 Ivan: Jeff, are you on IRC? 17:03:19 present+ 17:03:43 present 17:03:52 present+ jasminemulliken 17:04:00 present+ Chris_Maden 17:04:00 present+ 17:04:08 jbuehler has joined #pwg 17:04:35 marisa has joined #pwg 17:04:39 present+ 17:04:56 Jasmine: I'l Jasmine Mulliken, Stanford university press - I sent out a welcome email. We have a melon grant to publish digital online content, so I'm here to contribute to the conversation about what a web publication is. 17:05:07 present+ jbuehler 17:05:43 https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2017/2017-11-27-minutes.html 17:05:45 topic: last week's minutes 17:05:48 Tzviya: First lets approve the minutes from last week - are there any comments? 17:05:52 RESOLVED: meeting minutes accepted 17:05:56 BenSchroeter has joined #pwg 17:06:01 garth has joined #pwg 17:06:08 present+ Garth 17:06:09 present+ 17:06:24 Topic: FPWD for WP 17:06:25 https://w3c.github.io/wpub/ 17:07:12 present+ 17:07:37 ...: Minutes approved. This week we are working towards first working draft. Matt is not here to comment. Lets take a look at the web-pub document. Our goal for this document as well as Locators is to get it into a state where we can put a freeze for now and along with the PWP document - get it into a state so that we can publish as soon as the moratorium on publishing is lifted. We're going 17:07:37 to get everything ready and publish the three documents together - so we want it all ready for the first week of January. 17:09:01 ...: This is the opportunity to comment on this. What we mean by a freeze is that - with this document as well as PWP and locators - we have issues (intentionally) this is publishing to invite people to comment and discuss. We know there are open issues - this is not meant to solve everything, we have two more years. This is putting bait out to bring in the fish. We want to invite people to 17:09:01 come in and discuss these. Editorial, Rachel added a great image... Ivan, did I leave anything out? 17:09:02 Ivan: No 17:09:12 leslie has joined #pwg 17:09:27 harriett has joined #pwg 17:09:40 q? 17:09:41 Tzviya: What we need today is a resolution to publish. Then we need a call for consensus, then we'll be into the moratorium period. Any questions? 17:09:50 present+ 17:10:01 PROPOSED: The WG decides to publish the current WP document as a FPWD, with the short name 'wpub'; expected publication detail jan 4, '18 17:10:10 ...: Can we resolve to publish this? 17:10:16 +1 17:10:16 +1 17:10:18 +1 17:10:18 duga has joined #pwg 17:10:18 +1 17:10:19 +1 17:10:20 +1 17:10:21 +1 17:10:21 Ivan: we can vote on this, then leave the resolution in draft 17:10:22 +1 17:10:22 +1 17:10:24 +1 17:10:24 +1 17:10:25 present+ 17:10:26 +1 17:10:28 +1 17:10:29 +1 17:10:32 +1 (george) 17:10:32 +1 17:10:33 +1 17:10:34 +1 17:10:40 +.9 17:10:43 PI 17:10:46 +1 17:11:00 Hadrien has joined #pwg 17:11:04 RESOLVED: The WG decides to publish the current WP document as a FPWD, with the short name 'wpub'; expected publication detail jan 4, '18 17:11:05 present+ 17:11:09 +1 17:11:14 Evan has joined #pwg 17:11:35 Topic: Locator document for FPWD 17:11:44 Tzviya: Looks like we have consensus to publish this. Very good, that went very smoothly. Excellent. We will add a security section but Baldur has not added it yet. Lets move on to the Locators document. 17:11:46 https://w3c.github.io/publ-loc/ 17:12:10 ...: Same process for this document. Tim has done more work. 17:13:50 Karen has joined #pwg 17:14:18 q? 17:14:25 Tim: After last weeks call we made a change to fragment identifiers. We reduced the potential places where you would replace JSON with the fragment. Except for the embedded resource identifier. If you have an ID consisting of two or more files - and you wanted to reference one component of that document. We wanted to provide a way to do that using a fragment identifier. We took from the epub 17:14:25 CFI model - the model is there and explained reasonably well - much shorter than the old fragment ID. We also had placeholders for security and privacy - but we'll work on that in January. It still has a half dozen issues called out in the draft, but most of those revolve around use-cases for the selectors so that they make more sense. I think otherwise we are in good shape. If there are any 17:14:26 questions about fragment identifiers, let us know, otherwise we're ready to go. 17:15:20 Jeff: I've seen a few things addressed to me, but i want a better knowledge of what was written before providing comments. Lots of JSON being used as a data model, which is fine, but I find that interesting and want to learn more. 17:15:51 Tim: This was pulled from a previous WG - and yes, there was a decided decision to use JSON - probably because it's what they did and lets you do more than with a fragment ID. 17:16:20 Jeff: JSON seems OK - and I know quite a bit of developers who see that as program-eze, but not developers might have to learn a bit. 17:16:43 q? 17:16:59 PROPOSED: The WG decides to publish the current Locator document as a FPWD, with the short name 'publ-loc'; expected publication date jan 4, '18 17:17:06 regrets+ mattg 17:17:08 +1 17:17:13 +1 17:17:14 +1 17:17:14 Tzviya: It sounds like there are no formal questions - so proposed: lets vote on publishing. 17:17:16 +1 17:17:16 +1 17:17:19 +1 17:17:22 +1 17:17:22 +1.01 17:17:24 +1 17:17:25 =1 17:17:26 +1 17:17:26 +1 17:17:26 +1 17:17:30 +1 17:17:31 +1 17:17:34 +1 17:17:35 +1 17:17:41 0 17:18:28 Jasmine: My neutrality is simply not being familiar. So I'm not completely certain what it applies to. I'm not opposed, just don't know enough. 17:18:35 RESOLVED: The WG decides to publish the current Locator document as a FPWD, with the short name 'publ-loc'; expected publication date jan 4, '18 17:19:00 Tzviya: We have resolved to publish. The next item is review - and hopefully closing - issues that remain on the PWP repository. 17:19:04 Topic: Rerviewing/closing PWP issues 17:19:29 https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/9 17:20:41 Github: https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/9 17:20:54 ...: The two big issues remaining are issue 6 and 9. If you look through here - there's a comment where Dave Wood proposes some working definitions. Proposal: 'A PWP is a single resource...' ... There was some nit-picking, but it seems like we agree on a majority of the items. Did we have a final resolution? 17:20:58 +1 17:21:12 q+ 17:21:13 https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/9#issuecomment-347881185 17:21:18 ...: We wanted to combine 'may be published on the web' and 'need not be published on the web' into one item. 17:21:38 Garth: I thought that what Matt proposed was what people were agreeing on. It's similar to what you read. 17:22:04 Proposed resolution: "A Web Publication that has been packaged into a single information resource, enabling it to be transported and stored independent of any specific address or protocol. 17:22:04 A Packaged Web Publication is typically constructed from a published Web Publication (i.e., one that has a specific URL and is accessible via HTTP), but this is not a requirement. Similarly, it is possible to unpack a Packaged Web Publication and publish it as a Web Publication, although there are practical limitations to this (e.g., re-publishing cross-domain resources will require access to all the domains)." 17:22:13 George has joined #pwg 17:22:54 s/A Web Publication/A Packaged Web Publication/ 17:23:04 Garth: In the comment pasted above - it has web publication defined as (you can read comment above) 17:23:19 q? 17:23:28 ack ivan 17:23:28 Tzviya: On github people have mostly agreed on this - but lets check with all - is this what we're agreeing on? 17:23:49 Jeff: One of the obvious things is that all resources are available to the package. 17:24:30 q+ 17:24:42 Garth: There's a concept of a spine - and then secondary resources, the ones that are part of the publication. The primary and secondary would be in the Packaged part, but there can still be external resources. Such as a link to Wikipedia - which wouldn't be included. 17:24:43 ack ivan 17:25:23 Ivan: The other typical example Jeff is referring to a specific font. The situation is that - in some cases you do not wish to include the font. The reader might provide a fallback, but that is an example of a resource that isn't part of the package but is used. 17:26:07 Jeff: OK - this is a central issue in the work I'm currently doing. We work with lots of clients who have video, which breaks the epub3 spec. PDFs or other resources that are outside of the epub3 spec. So it's of real interest to me. 17:26:30 Garth: Epub3 allows video resources to be external... 17:26:40 Jeff: You are right, but PDF gives you errors 17:26:52 : https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/9#issuecomment-347881185 17:27:11 Garth: So, is this a fine definition? Any comments? 17:27:12 q? 17:27:25 PROPOSED: accept the comment above as the definition for PWP for now 17:27:30 Thank you Nick. 17:27:33 +1 17:27:37 +1 17:27:39 +1 17:27:51 +1 17:27:52 +1 17:27:54 https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6 17:27:54 RESOLVED: accept the comment above as the definition for PWP for now 17:27:56 github-bot, end topic 17:28:07 https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6 17:28:08 github: https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6 17:28:19 topic: Issue 6 17:28:26 https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6#issuecomment-347396713 17:28:32 Tzviya: Issue 6 now - Now that we have a working defintion, Hadrien started an issue around listing requirements. Most can be resolve by pointing to what was said in issue 9. 17:28:33 q? 17:28:36 q+ 17:28:40 github: https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6 17:29:04 q? 17:29:05 ack Hadrien 17:29:51 hadrien: I think the issue is about the requirements - not necessarily the definition. I like the proposal that was rephrased, but it's separate from a definition, so it's still useful. We should extract something out of it, not replace it with the defintion 17:29:56 garth's proposal https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/6#issuecomment-347396713 17:30:08 Garth: I agree, it's different than a definition and it's appropriate for inclusion in the first public working draft. 17:30:38 Tzviya: I think the requirements can be different from the working draft. I posted a link (above) to what Garth proposed. 17:30:45 https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/3vRnKT3R/ 17:31:23 For the minutes: MUST contain a WP manifest at a well-known location (e.g. manifest.json) 17:31:24 MUST contain all resources that are part of the publication (reading order + secondary resources) 17:31:24 MAY contain additional resources that are referenced by the publication (for example a metadata record in a different format) 17:31:24 MAY contain the request & response HTTP payloads for each resource 17:32:35 Tzviya: Do we have any comments on these? 17:32:37 q+ 17:32:40 Ship it! 17:32:42 ack wolfgang 17:32:54 q+ 17:32:59 Wolfgang: What's the advantage of the 4th bullet point? Do we need it? 17:33:52 q? 17:33:59 Though in this case I think it’s important that such support is available, though not required. 17:34:05 q? 17:34:09 ack ivan 17:34:13 Hadrien: There is a number of HTTP header information that is important. This is something necessary for the implementation in many cases. For a format like web-packaging, to support offline reading (which is almost exactly the same as packaged) you need the response. You need the request and the response as they go hand in hand - for the service workers... There is information and it's needed 17:34:13 for implementation 17:34:47 q+ 17:35:26 Ivan: I disagree with some things here. There is information that's useful, but is the whole HTTP payload - which may include a number of things that are totally irrelevant. The spec - the number of possible headers is HUGE. For the first working draft, it should be fine, but my preference is to make explicit which items in the HTTP request/response - that in some way in other - must be made 17:35:26 available. The way described here is a number of unnecessary things. 17:35:35 ack baldurbjarnason 17:35:37 ack baldurbjarnason 17:35:37 Garth: Even though I see a queue, i resolve we discuss later. 17:36:18 +1 with what Baldur said 17:36:32 q? 17:36:55 q+ 17:36:57 Baldur: We need HTTP for full compatibility with web-stack. If we leave that out of packaging, we'll have quite a few situations where a packaged web publication will act much differently than a regular web-publications. A host of things, especially around javascript... We're trying to encompass all the possible interactions. It's more complicated to leave it out than it is to support it. 17:37:01 ack ivan 17:37:38 Ivan: Can we at least say - that we refer here only to the sender HTTP verbs? We don't have to include the extension verbs simply because a server users them and sends them back? 17:37:40 q? 17:37:52 Hadrien: There might be a few extras, but it shouldn't be that bad. 17:38:54 Ivan: We should create a seperate issue that looks only at this. If we include everything or just cherry pick from the header. And we flag this as something to discuss 17:39:16 q+ 17:39:26 Tzviya: So we're agreeing on the first 3 bullets - and we're adding a new issue to discuss the 4th 17:39:32 ack Hadrien 17:39:35 ack Hadrien 17:39:38 Garth: I recommend we agree on the 4 then attach the issue to the 4th 17:39:52 Hardien: I'll open some issues about a dedicated media type and file extension 17:40:07 Ivan: A media type often gets a file extension - so you may not need both 17:40:13 PROPOSED: agree on those four bullet, add a new issue exclusively on the HTTP and refer to it 17:40:24 +1 17:40:26 +1 17:40:28 +1 17:40:29 +1 17:40:32 +1 17:40:33 +1 17:40:35 +1 17:40:37 +1 17:40:37 +1 17:40:42 +1 17:40:44 +1 17:40:45 +1 17:40:48 +1 17:40:54 +1 17:41:02 RESOLVED: agree on those four bullets, add a new issue exclusively on the HTTP and refer to it 17:41:21 +1 17:42:35 github-bot, end topic 17:42:54 q+ 17:42:55 Tzivya: Reminder - we are meeting next week, and the following, then we're off for two weeks 17:43:01 ack ivan 17:43:26 Ivan: I have a question - if I understand, we'll have a call later with David. Then what will you try to get out of him in terms of when the first public working draft vote will come? 17:43:43 Tzviya: Hopefully before next week he will have something, but it might be longer, but it will be next week or the following. 17:44:11 Ivan: I have to submit a transmission request on the week of the 11th the latest. 17:45:37 q? 17:46:29 bye 17:46:32 cmaden2 has left #pwg 17:46:33 JunGamo has left #pwg 17:46:33 dkaplan3 has left #pwg 17:46:37 NickRuffilo has left #pwg 17:46:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:46:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/04-pwg-minutes.html ivan 17:47:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:47:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/12/04-pwg-minutes.html ivan 17:47:01 zakim, bye 17:47:01 rrsagent, bye 17:47:01 I see no action items 17:47:01 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Luc, ivan, dkaplan, dauwhe, tzviya, george, Avneesh, rdeltour, baldurbjarnason, Tim_Cole, toshiakikoike, lsullam, JunGamo, pkrka, 17:47:01 Zakim has left #pwg 17:47:04 ... pkra, bigbluehat, jasminemulliken, Chris_Maden, NickRuffilo, marisa, jbuehler, Garth, BenSchroeter, rachel_, harriett, duga, .9, Hadrien