15:46:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:46:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/05/21-pwg-irc
15:46:34 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:46:34 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:46:34 <ivan> Chair: Garth
15:46:34 <ivan> Date: 2018-05-21
15:46:34 <ivan> Regrets+ Tzviya, pkra, Teenya, laurentlemeur, jmulliken, marisa, mattg
15:46:34 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018May/0038.html
15:46:35 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2018-05-21: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018May/0038.html
15:47:35 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #pwg
15:49:15 <jbuehler> jbuehler has joined #pwg
15:50:22 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:53:54 <ivan> present+
15:54:52 <dkaplan3> present+
15:55:20 <Rachel> present+
15:55:40 <ivan> present+ makoto
15:55:46 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has left #pwg
15:55:54 <ivan> present+ jbuehler
15:56:58 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
15:58:12 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:58:18 <EvanOwens> EvanOwens has joined #pwg
15:59:24 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
15:59:32 <garth> present+ Garth
15:59:33 <ivan> regrets+ Caitlin Gebhard, Vlas
15:59:39 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #pwg
15:59:41 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
15:59:42 <ivan> regrets+ Vlad
15:59:55 <ivan> s/Vlas/Vlad/
16:00:11 <dauwhe> present+ dauwhe
16:00:15 <ivan> present+ george
16:00:16 <rdeltour> present+
16:01:03 <NickRuffilo> NickRuffilo has joined #pwg
16:01:07 <ivan> present+ NickRuffilo
16:01:17 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
16:01:22 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
16:01:22 <Avneesh> present+
16:01:30 <josh> present+
16:01:38 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:01:39 <derekjackson> derekjackson has joined #pwg
16:01:50 <Jun_Gamo> Jun_Gamo has joined #pwg
16:01:56 <franco> present+ Franco Alvarado
16:02:06 <dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe
16:02:07 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:02:10 <adamsisco> adamsisco has joined #pwg
16:02:20 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:02:38 <Jun_Gamo> present+
16:02:51 <dauwhe> garth: the rain in spain falls mainly on southern california
16:03:12 <dauwhe> garth: let's get started
16:03:13 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
16:03:32 <garth> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qe8Q8wMC1LKy_-JO-UCy8bFw4D4VN0si1Q5EPW9c-rY/edit?usp=sharing
16:03:34 <laudrain> present+
16:03:36 <Hadrien> Hadrien has joined #pwg
16:03:36 <dauwhe> Topic: F2F agenda
16:03:38 <adamsisco> present+
16:03:39 <gpellegrino> present+
16:03:40 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:03:42 <Hadrien> present+
16:03:46 <duga> present+
16:04:12 <ReinaldoFerraz> ReinaldoFerraz has joined #pwg
16:04:17 <timCole> timCole has joined #pwg
16:04:18 <dauwhe> ... we won't have a call next Monday
16:04:22 <dauwhe> ... holiday in the US
16:04:30 <ivan> q+
16:04:34 <timCole> present+ Tim_Cole
16:04:37 <dauwhe> ... reach out to the chairs if you have changes for the agenda
16:04:41 <dauwhe> q?
16:04:44 <garth> http://hotelocho.com/food.html
16:04:53 <George> George has joined #pwg
16:04:55 <dauwhe> ... there will be a dinner on Wednesday night (link above)
16:05:05 <garth> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qe8Q8wMC1LKy_-JO-UCy8bFw4D4VN0si1Q5EPW9c-rY/edit#heading=h.wxsg3gz7h6ps
16:05:08 <dauwhe> ... there's a signup sheet in google docs
16:05:13 <evan> evan has joined #pwg
16:05:16 <dauwhe> ... ^
16:05:22 <George> present+ George
16:05:25 <garth> https://goo.gl/forms/UZ0yv8EBXBujTePw1
16:05:32 <evan> present+
16:05:32 <dauwhe> ... and there's a dietary restrictions form
16:05:45 <garth> q?
16:05:51 <garth> ack ivan
16:05:52 <dauwhe> ... please fill it out even if you're not going to the dinner, as it covers lunch and snacks at the F2F
16:06:08 <dauwhe> ivan: the same goto meeting channel is open during the F2F, thanks to Laurent
16:06:27 <garth> q?
16:06:42 <dauwhe> garth: what I wanted to try to do at this juncture
16:06:48 <mateus> mateus has joined #pwg
16:07:02 <dauwhe> ... we have a handful of issues where there's been a lot of discussion
16:07:07 <dauwhe> ... I talked to Ivan in Berlin
16:07:14 <mateus> present+
16:07:21 <dauwhe> ... we grabbed a few of these that we want agreement on before the F2F
16:07:35 <dauwhe> ... the first one is, what is the browsing context (104)
16:07:38 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/104
16:08:00 <dauwhe> github: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/104
16:08:24 <dauwhe> garth: we want to lose the term publication context because it's not relevant, and I don't think it's in scope for this group
16:08:36 <garth> “A WP definition does not specify whether the content is rendered in a Progressive Web App, in the browser directly or via an extension, or in a separate app (or whatever else).  Therefore we propose to close this issue with the answer to the original question (i.e., “What is the Browsing Context of a Web Publication?”) by saying “whatever the implementation chooses it to be.” Which is, by default, just the context of the “entry point”.  Further propose
16:08:37 <dauwhe> ... the proposal we came up with is
16:08:37 <garth> to alter the current draft to remove the reference to "Publication Context."”
16:08:39 <garth> q?
16:08:58 <dauwhe> ... I'll read this and then we can discuss
16:09:03 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:09:59 <rkwright> present+
16:10:09 <garth> q?
16:10:20 <dauwhe> ... if there happens to be a WAM a publication can be a progressive web app, but we don't have to define it so
16:10:32 <garth> q?
16:10:35 <dauwhe> q+
16:10:44 <garth> ack dauwhe
16:11:02 <bigbluehat> q+
16:11:22 <garth> ack bigbluehat
16:11:24 <Jun_Gamo> Jun_Gamo has joined #pwg
16:11:24 <dauwhe> dauwhe: we should be clear about where script runs in web publications
16:11:38 <dauwhe> ... but I'm ok with this language
16:11:46 <dauwhe> bigbluehat: my take is similar to dauwhe
16:11:59 <dauwhe> ... we're not stating where stuff happens, so we don't need to declare a browsing context
16:12:16 <garth> q?
16:12:16 <dauwhe> garth: dauwhe is correct that scripts are involved
16:12:29 <dauwhe> bigbluehat: there are other concerns about the audience of the specification being unclear
16:12:40 <dauwhe> ... I'm not sure who recognizes themselves as an implementor
16:12:41 <garth> q?
16:12:57 <dauwhe> garth: I don't hesitate to take silence as consent
16:13:01 <dkaplan3> q+
16:13:02 <jbuehler> +1 to the last two comments
16:13:15 <dauwhe> q?
16:13:36 <dauwhe> dkaplan3: I'm going to consent +0 :)
16:13:49 <dauwhe> ... we've talked before about the complications of requiring scripts
16:14:01 <dauwhe> ... I understand the reality we live in, but we should be wary...
16:14:16 <dauwhe> ... define scripts very carefully so they don't create more problems than they solve
16:14:31 <dauwhe> garth: let's say we resolve 104 with the above language
16:14:55 <dauwhe> github-bot: end topic
16:15:00 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/193
16:15:04 <ivan> resolved: A WP definition does not specify whether the content is rendered in a Progressive Web App, in the browser directly or via an extension, or in a separate app (or whatever else).  Therefore we propose to close this issue with the answer to the original question (i.e., “What is the Browsing Context of a Web Publication?”) by saying “whatever the implementation chooses it to be.” Which is, by default, just the context of the “entry point”.  Further
16:15:04 <ivan>  propose to alter the current draft to remove the reference to "Publication Context."
16:15:12 <dauwhe> github: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/193
16:15:17 <dauwhe> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/193
16:15:23 <dauwhe> github: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/193
16:15:51 <dauwhe> garth: I'm in the "put everything in one place" camp
16:16:00 <garth> “The infoset mostly resides within a JSON manifest (WP manifest). That JSON may optionally be embedded in the entry page rather than a standalone file referenced by <link> from the entry page.  It may be supported to allow some infoset items to reside in HTML of the entry page, if information duplication issues can be sufficiently avoided.”
16:16:05 <dauwhe> ... the proposal that Ivan and I came up with in Berlin I'm pasting in
16:16:22 <dauwhe> ... it may not be consensus, but I hope it's in the "can live with it"
16:16:43 <dauwhe> garth: (reads proposed spec language above)
16:17:03 <Rachel> q+
16:17:14 <dauwhe> ... the only html info we've talked about is using nav to define primary reading order in HTML, so this leaves that as a possibility
16:17:30 <garth> ack dkaplan3
16:17:42 <garth> ack dkaplan
16:17:49 <dauwhe> Rachel: Hello!
16:17:59 <dauwhe> ... the Q I have is about language
16:18:05 <dauwhe> ... I don't understand "mostly"
16:18:16 <dauwhe> ... do you mean "primarily"?
16:18:28 <dauwhe> garth: that "mostly" was letting my religion show
16:18:31 <dauwhe> ... it means primarily
16:18:56 <dauwhe> ... there is a wp manifest, and it is a json thing, and most stuff should live there unless we find exceptions (like the nav thing)
16:19:05 <garth> q?
16:19:06 <ivan> +1 for primarily instead of mostly
16:19:13 <dauwhe> garth: does that anser the question?
16:19:15 <garth> ack Rachel
16:19:30 <dauwhe> Rachel: can we change mostly to primarily, and qualify that language with what you just said?
16:19:44 <dauwhe> garth: we can switch out the words in the resolution
16:19:52 <dauwhe> ... and we can assign to matt to make it clearer
16:19:53 <garth> q?
16:20:13 <garth> q?
16:20:17 <dauwhe> garth: this one I view as less controversial; we're not deviating from the existing draft much
16:20:36 <ivan> resolved: The infoset primarily resides within a JSON manifest (WP manifest). That JSON may optionally be embedded in the entry page rather than a standalone file referenced by <link> from the entry page.  It may be supported to allow some infoset items to reside in HTML of the entry page, if information duplication issues can be sufficiently avoided.
16:20:39 <dauwhe> ... if everyone's in the 'can live with it" or "likes it" camp, I'm gonna assume consensus
16:20:48 <dauwhe> github-bot: end topic
16:21:15 <garth> topic: WAM or not
16:21:26 <garth> “Publications, as specified here, are not necessarily Progressive Web Applications. On the other hand, WAM is tightly coupled to a Progressive Web Applications, thus,, we will not require the usage of the WAM and our specification should not be dependent on it. The WP Manifest should be specified independently of the WAM. Of course, a particular WP may be rendered via a PWA, and therefore use a WAM, but that is orthogonal to this specification.”
16:21:31 <dauwhe> garth: this isn't really an issue resolution, unless we can find the issue
16:21:36 <dauwhe> ... there's been a lot of discussion
16:21:53 <dauwhe> garth: (reads above proposed resolution)
16:22:14 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
16:22:29 <garth> q?
16:22:39 <dauwhe> garth: how can a proposed resolution that uses orthogonal not be a good resolution? ;)
16:22:44 <bigbluehat> q+
16:22:52 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:22:52 <dauwhe> q+
16:23:02 <dauwhe> garth: this is where I hoped we'd end up
16:23:04 <garth> ack bigbluehat
16:23:22 <dauwhe> bigbluehat: +1 to the text as is; this was the takeaway of the task force
16:23:29 <garth> ack dauwhe
16:23:35 <Hadrien> +1 as well
16:23:46 <dkaplan31> dkaplan31 has joined #pwg
16:23:55 <timCole> q+
16:24:01 <dauwhe> dauwhe: +1.
16:24:08 <josh> +1
16:24:18 <jbuehler> +1 for me as well
16:24:20 <dauwhe> timCole: I'm a little concerned with the wishy-washy language at the end... it seems gratuitious.
16:24:46 <ivan> q+
16:24:48 <dauwhe> ...  another concern I have is that there will be people in the browser community who will say if some WPs can be specified by WAM, let's only worry about those WPs.
16:25:05 <ivan> ack timCole
16:25:11 <dauwhe> garth: this was not in my mind proposed spec language, this is what is in our understanding of the issue
16:25:15 <ivan> proposed: proposed: Publications, as specified here, are not necessarily Progressive Web Applications. On the other hand, WAM is tightly coupled to a Progressive Web Applications, thus we will not require the usage of the WAM and our specification should not be dependent on it. The WP Manifest should be specified independently of the WAM.
16:25:16 <dauwhe> ... don't disagree with your comment
16:26:46 <dauwhe> garth: I think what Ivan just posted is addressing your comment, Tim
16:26:57 <dauwhe> ... I think Matt will resolve this
16:27:08 <dauwhe> garth: OK. Let's count that as a resolution.
16:27:20 <ivan> resolved: Publications, as specified here, are not necessarily Progressive Web Applications. On the other hand, WAM is tightly coupled to a Progressive Web Applications, thus we will not require the usage of the WAM and our specification should not be dependent on it. The WP Manifest should be specified independently of the WAM.
16:27:24 <dauwhe> garth: I didn't think we could get through these issues in an hour
16:27:43 <dauwhe> ... I did put one more thing on the agenda, but it is quite relevant to an issue that came up this morning
16:27:58 <garth> q?
16:28:04 <garth> ack ivan
16:28:14 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/198
16:28:26 <garth> Is an exhaustive "resource list" required to create a Web Publication?
16:28:26 <dauwhe> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/198
16:28:29 <dauwhe> Github: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/198
16:29:16 <dauwhe> garth: there's a primary reading order, but what about the rest of the issues. Must they specified fully?
16:29:26 <dauwhe> ... there are some comments in there that I like, from Ivan
16:29:43 <dauwhe> ... the list of secondary resoources should be those needed for offlining
16:30:03 <duga> q+
16:30:08 <dauwhe> ... the Q is whether that list of secondary resources is required. MUST all web pubs be offlinable/packageable?
16:30:14 <josh> q+
16:30:24 <dauwhe> ... so the secondary list is author-optional?
16:30:25 <garth> https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#wp-resource-list
16:30:58 <dauwhe> garth: it does have the statement that it is strongly recommended to supply a list of all resources
16:31:03 <dauwhe> ... that's a may, not a must.
16:31:12 <garth> q?
16:31:12 <dauwhe> ... if that's really what we mean that drives the issue
16:31:26 <dauwhe> duga: we can discuss this again, but this exact question has been asked
16:31:29 <Hadrien> I think the current draft is fine
16:31:43 <dauwhe> ... the very clear answer from the group is that not all publications can be cached/offlined
16:31:50 <dauwhe> garth: I don't love it, I can live with it
16:31:51 <Hadrien> q+
16:31:54 <dauwhe> ack duga
16:32:04 <dkaplan31> q+
16:32:08 <ivan> q+
16:32:11 <dauwhe> duga: I'm not necessarily in the camp, but I asked the q and the answer was clear
16:32:15 <garth> ack josh
16:32:39 <dauwhe> josh: I'm not entirely clear how the requirement for a resource list factors into packagability
16:32:54 <dauwhe> ... even a non-offlineable publication could have a list of constituent pieces
16:33:07 <dauwhe> ... but I wanted to weigh in that I feel strongly that WP 'may" be packagable
16:33:33 <dauwhe> ... there are a lot of publications where it would be impractical to package
16:33:42 <dauwhe> ... and we don't want things to be automatically packageable
16:33:53 <garth> q?
16:33:55 <dauwhe> ... we want to tag things as unpackagable, possibly with a license
16:34:09 <dauwhe> ... in terms of offlinable, I feel less strongly
16:34:21 <dauwhe> ... it might be a worthwile challenge to say they must be offlinable
16:34:57 <dauwhe> .... what that means to me is that they are desgined so that if you have minimal bandwidth, then a minimal amout of data to start the publication, and it doesn't lock up if  you go into the proverbial train tunnel
16:35:01 <dauwhe> ... perhaps without videos etc
16:35:13 <dauwhe> ... but at least it doesn't "lock up" when it loses connection
16:35:21 <dauwhe> garth: let me answer the first thing
16:35:41 <dauwhe> ... my view is that the exhaustive list of secondary resources is required to make things offlinable
16:35:45 <dauwhe> ... or packaged
16:35:52 <dauwhe> ... if that list is missing
16:36:23 <garth> q?
16:36:25 <dauwhe> ... then you're going thru the list of primary, then web browsers do know how to get the associated resources
16:36:31 <dauwhe> Hadrien: the current spec language is fine
16:36:38 <dauwhe> ... I don't agree with what you said
16:36:46 <dauwhe> ... it's possible to have publications with everything in html
16:36:53 <dauwhe> ... with CSS inline, images as base64
16:37:13 <dauwhe> ... so I don't think we should tie ability to offline to a list of resources
16:37:25 <dauwhe> garth: then you don't need a list of secondary resources
16:37:29 <dauwhe> ... I agree
16:37:38 <garth> q?
16:37:46 <garth> ack Hadrien
16:37:47 <ivan> ack Hadrien
16:37:51 <dauwhe> Hadrien: basically the list of resources is not what is going to indicate if a WP is packagable
16:38:01 <dauwhe> ... you can always package or cache the primary resources
16:38:24 <dauwhe> ... but if your WP depends on JS, css, etc, and you don't include those in the list of resources, than this can affect the quality of the experience
16:38:37 <dauwhe> ... this is not similar for all publications
16:38:53 <dauwhe> ... some will heavily rely on JS, and if you don't include JS they will break
16:39:03 <dauwhe> dkaplan31: I want to say a variant
16:39:09 <dauwhe> ... this is a controversial thing
16:39:18 <dauwhe> ... we shouldn't just say let's agree
16:39:25 <dauwhe> ... we are conflating too many things
16:39:37 <dauwhe> ... it's hard to differentiate between packaging and offlining
16:39:46 <dauwhe> ... packaging is not the same as rights management
16:39:56 <dauwhe> ... packaging and piracy are separate
16:40:06 <dauwhe> ... it's important to understand what secondary resources are
16:40:20 <dauwhe> ... in some cases ALL CSS and JS are necessary for the publication
16:40:28 <dauwhe> ... if they are necessary they're not secondary
16:40:46 <dauwhe> ... if the publication is not usuable without the resource, then there's an arguement that it's not secondary
16:41:20 <garth> q?
16:41:22 <duga> q+
16:41:32 <garth> ack dkaplan
16:41:40 <dauwhe> ivan: I won after all :)
16:41:42 <garth> ack ivan
16:41:52 <dauwhe> ... we have to be careful to distinguish between offline and packaging
16:41:58 <dauwhe> ... these are two different things
16:42:27 <dauwhe> ... we may have to have yet another entry in our infoset which says does the author allow offlining or packaging
16:42:45 <dauwhe> ... if we decide there are non-offlinable WPs, we must state this, we cannot deduce this from magic
16:42:51 <dkaplan31> so to clarify:
16:42:51 <dkaplan31> 1. Let's have an up/down vote on language if we're deciding today, not a quick silence = consent
16:42:51 <dkaplan31> 2. Packaging != offlining != rights management
16:42:51 <dkaplan31> 3. If a resource is necessary, it's not secondary.  If it's necessary, it needs to be listed. If it's not necessary, it doesn't need to be listed.
16:43:00 <dauwhe> ... I would prefer we say every WP is at the minimum offlineable
16:43:21 <dauwhe> ... and the author should say this explicitly
16:43:25 <dkaplan31> I agree with Ivan, re: offlineable. +1
16:43:27 <Bill_Kasdorf> Note that there is a difference between "allowing" offlining and "enabling" offlining.
16:43:31 <dauwhe> ... the list controls what goes into the offline version
16:43:31 <timCole> q+
16:44:07 <dauwhe> ivan: I think every web publication is offlineable, but it's up to the author to say what's in the offline version
16:44:35 <dauwhe> garth: I think with the language that the full list is recommended but not required
16:44:43 <dauwhe> ... that means the pub may or not be fully offlineable
16:44:46 <dauwhe> ivan: what do you mean?
16:44:54 <dkaplan31> I don't agree with that, Garth.
16:45:04 <ivan> q+
16:45:22 <dauwhe> garth: if such a list of 2ndary resources isn't there, then offline would get primary resources plus their direct links, which might not be enough
16:45:22 <garth> ack duga
16:45:33 <josh> +1 (please God, no DRM)
16:45:34 <ivan> +1 to duga
16:45:35 <dauwhe> duga: I want to remind people that DRM is out of scope, and we shouldn't worry about it
16:45:35 <dkaplan31> duga++
16:45:42 <laudrain> +1
16:45:48 <dauwhe> timCole: we did have a converstation that relates to offlinability and caching
16:45:48 <timCole> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/183
16:46:20 <dauwhe> timCole: that doesn't get all the way to DRM, but in browsers you might say that something shouldn't be cached because it changes too quickly
16:46:29 <dauwhe> ... we also haven't defined what offlining means
16:46:37 <garth> q?
16:46:40 <ivan> ack timCole
16:46:42 <garth> ack timCole
16:46:43 <dauwhe> ... so I don't agree with Ivan that everything should be techncially offlinable, that might be too much
16:46:55 <dauwhe> garth: I'm gonna paste something in that Ivan might disagree with
16:46:57 <garth> “Is an exhaustive "resource list" required to create a Web Publication?
16:46:58 <garth> No.  Such an an exhaustive list may be needed to make the WP fully offline-able or package-able.  But, an exhaustive list of resources required (beyond the primary reading order) is not required, as it is up to the author whether a WP is fully offline-able or package-able.”
16:47:14 <dauwhe> ... the issue: is an exhaustive list required? I'll propose above as resolution
16:47:22 <dauwhe> ivan: you said something that worries me, garth
16:47:54 <dauwhe> ... you said you take the primary resources offline, and the CSS and etc... that is pandora's box
16:48:06 <dauwhe> ... there are things I didn't mention explicity that are offlined
16:48:14 <dkaplan31> q+
16:48:14 <dauwhe> garth: I'm for requiring the list
16:48:15 <garth> q?
16:48:22 <dauwhe> ivan: I don't think we need a decision
16:48:23 <duga> q+
16:48:30 <dauwhe> garth: the spec says the list isn't required
16:48:44 <dauwhe> ivan: let's not go into linguistic analysis
16:48:51 <garth> q+ Hadrien
16:49:04 <garth> ack ivan
16:49:11 <dauwhe> ... it just meant that the resource list may be a selective list that are used by WP but selected by what can go into a cache and what can't
16:49:14 <dauwhe> ... this is not easy
16:49:27 <ivan> ack dkaplan
16:49:28 <dauwhe> dkaplan31: i agree with ivan
16:49:35 <dauwhe> ... we are not stating about packaging and offline
16:49:41 <dauwhe> ... this is a Q about resource list
16:49:57 <dauwhe> ... offline and packaging aren't in the scope of the next 11 min
16:50:07 <dauwhe> ... but it's legitimate to say what that list of resoruces will enable
16:50:33 <dauwhe> ... what is in the resources defined what could be cached, what could be offlined, what could be packaged, what could be preloaded
16:50:56 <dauwhe> ... here are affordances provided by a such a list. if a resource isn' tin the list, then these things aren't possible
16:51:07 <dauwhe> ... this is just a minimum requirement
16:51:10 <garth> ack duga
16:51:21 <dauwhe> duga: +1 to understanding what this list is for
16:51:49 <dauwhe> ... if CSS is not listed in 2ndary list, am I forbidden from downloading it?
16:52:04 <dauwhe> ... one reason we didn't require resources to be in this list is scripting
16:52:05 <jbuehler> +1 dauwhe beyond scope of next 10 min - I need to think about this more myself
16:52:16 <garth> q?
16:52:25 <dauwhe> ... where it might not be possible to determine what resources are used by script
16:52:31 <garth> ack Hadrien
16:52:36 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask for clarity around how exhaustiveness (related to the "why do we need this list?" questions)
16:52:38 <dauwhe> Hadrien: a comment on terminolgy
16:52:46 <dauwhe> ... i think primary and secondary are confusing
16:52:53 <dauwhe> ... we're talking about reading order and list of resources
16:53:01 <dauwhe> ... we need to be careful
16:53:10 <dauwhe> ... talkign about offlining is confusing.
16:53:15 <dauwhe> ... there are many ways to do that.
16:53:37 <dauwhe> ... we should talking about caching and packaging
16:53:43 <dauwhe> ... packaging is a way of offlining, too
16:53:59 <dauwhe> ... I think default reading order and resources are two lists where we ahve expectation of user agents
16:54:17 <dauwhe> ... we expect UA to do something more, put them in package, to have a proxy to intercept requests
16:54:22 <garth> q?
16:54:23 <dauwhe> ... this is what we should be discussing
16:54:33 <dauwhe> ... what the UA should be doing that the web doesn't do now
16:54:40 <dauwhe> ... everyhting else should be like the web
16:55:11 <dauwhe> ... if we have image with cache-control headers, it might still work offline because of caching even when it isn't in the list
16:55:23 <dauwhe> q?
16:55:31 <timCole> +1 Hadrien
16:55:47 <garth> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-05-07-pwg.html
16:55:57 <bigbluehat> +1 to minutes
16:56:02 <dauwhe> minutes approved
16:56:05 <ivan> Resolved: last meeting's minutes approved
16:56:11 <garth> q?
16:56:16 <dauwhe> ack bigbluehat
16:56:16 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask for clarity around how exhaustiveness (related to the "why do we need this list?" questions)
16:56:20 <garth> ack bigbluehat
16:56:32 <dauwhe> bigbluehat: the Q that came up as to what H said, why do we need the list...
16:56:43 <dauwhe> ... working out the scenarios for its use
16:57:10 <dauwhe> ... currently it's recommended, but now we say that it has to include all the primary resources, and we've doubled everything
16:57:22 <dauwhe> ... we also need to define exhaustive
16:57:32 <dauwhe> ... and we haven't repeated existing components
16:57:45 <dauwhe> ... it would be good to work thru the "why is this here" stuff
16:57:57 <dauwhe> garth: I'm giving up on my fantasy of closing this issue
16:58:12 <dauwhe> ... we do have agreement that the primary reading order is required
16:58:19 <dauwhe> s/primary/default/
16:58:39 <bigbluehat> +1 to not restating stuff
16:58:40 <garth> q?
16:58:44 <dauwhe> ... I would envision the resource list is stuff beyond the default the reading order, so we don't restate stuff
16:58:48 <bigbluehat> (as in not restating stuff in the resource list)
16:59:01 <Hadrien> +1 to avoid redundancy between default reading order and list of resources
16:59:10 <ivan> +1, too
16:59:31 <laudrain> +1
16:59:33 <dauwhe> github-bot: end topic
16:59:41 <ivan> Safe travels for all who come!
16:59:49 <dauwhe> garth: thanks everyone
16:59:53 <dauwhe> ... no call on Memorial day
16:59:56 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has left #pwg
17:00:09 <dkaplan31> dkaplan31 has left #pwg
17:00:20 <evan> evan has left #pwg
17:00:24 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/21-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:00:24 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:00:24 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:00:24 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ivan, dkaplan, Rachel, makoto, jbuehler, Garth, Benjamin_Young, dauwhe, george, rdeltour, NickRuffilo, Avneesh, Donald, Duck,
17:00:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
17:00:27 <Zakim> ... josh, Franco, Alvarado, Bill_Kasdorf, Jun_Gamo, laudrain, adamsisco, gpellegrino, Hadrien, duga, Tim_Cole, evan, mateus, rkwright, Chris_Maden