15:40:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:40:26 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/08/27-pwg-irc
15:40:27 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:40:27 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:40:27 <ivan> Chair: Tzviya
15:40:27 <ivan> Date: 2018-08-27
15:40:27 <ivan> Regrets+ laudrain, laurent, NickRuffilo, makoto, adamsisco, JeanK
15:40:27 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Aug/0018.html
15:40:28 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting 2018-08-27: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Aug/0018.html
15:53:52 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:53:55 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
15:57:05 <Teenya> Teenya has joined #pwg
15:57:14 <tzviya> regrets+ Benjamin_Young
15:57:54 <George> George has joined #pwg
15:58:48 <George> present+ George
15:58:53 <dkaplan3> present+
15:59:05 <tzviya> present+
15:59:26 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
15:59:40 <caitlingebhard> caitlingebhard has joined #pwg
15:59:59 <EvanOwens> EvanOwens has joined #pwg
16:00:02 <tzviya> present+
16:00:10 <dauwhe> present+
16:00:15 <caitlingebhard> present+
16:00:19 <dkaplan3> present+
16:00:21 <gpellegrino> present+
16:00:26 <ivan> present+
16:00:28 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
16:00:30 <Rachel> present+
16:00:32 <Teenya> present+
16:00:41 <timCole> timCole has joined #pwg
16:00:56 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
16:01:12 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:01:29 <rkwright> present+
16:02:18 <mgarrish> present+
16:02:48 <tzviya> zakim, pick a victim
16:02:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose George
16:02:56 <tzviya> zakim, pick a victim
16:02:56 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mgarrish
16:03:04 <jbuehler> jbuehler has joined #PWG
16:03:21 <derekjackson> derekjackson has joined #pwg
16:03:24 <Rachel> zakim, why do you hate mgarrish?
16:03:24 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Rachel.
16:03:25 <ivan> scribenick: mgarrish
16:03:41 <dauwhe> Zakim, please, why do you hate mgarrish?
16:03:41 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dauwhe.
16:03:50 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:03:53 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-08-20-pwg.html
16:03:59 <garth> present+ Garth
16:04:09 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
16:04:20 <marisa> present+
16:04:25 <Hadrien> Hadrien has joined #pwg
16:04:31 <Hadrien> present+
16:04:32 <derekjackson> present+
16:04:45 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:05:01 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:05:43 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes accepted
16:05:48 <mgarrish> tzviya: minutes approved
16:06:11 <ivan> topic: Issues
16:06:23 <mgarrish> tzviya: take a look at Rachel's summary style and please try to adopt it for issues
16:06:25 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:06:27 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
16:06:30 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:06:30 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/291#issuecomment-415510019
16:06:32 <ivan> subtopic: issue 291, TOC
16:06:39 <Avneesh> present+
16:06:41 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:06:44 <duga> present+
16:07:18 <garth> q?
16:07:30 <garth> q+
16:07:34 <tzviya> ack garth
16:07:37 <mgarrish> tzviya: Differing opinions about how to specify the ToC in WPUB. Some are of the opinion that a ToC can include anything as long as the HTML includes aria role="doc-toc" to signal to the UA that it is the ToC. Some are of the opinion that the ToC must be more strictly defined so that the ToC can be processed in a standard way by UAs.
16:07:50 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
16:08:06 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #pwg
16:08:07 <dkaplan3> q+
16:08:21 <clapierre> present+
16:08:27 <zheng_xu> zheng_xu has joined #pwg
16:08:55 <zheng_xu> present+
16:09:06 <tzviya> regrets+ Josh_Pyle
16:09:10 <mgarrish> garth: there is contingent of people who think we shouldn't put substantial constraints on the toc to work with the web, but for reading systems we need a toc that can be machine processable. We ought to have the ability to provide a machine-readable toc similar to the epub 3 nav doc that can also be pointed to
16:09:14 <tzviya> ack dkaplan
16:09:16 <George> There would be 0 or 1 file with DocTOC?
16:09:19 <dauwhe> q+
16:09:46 <tzviya> q+
16:10:57 <mgarrish> dkaplan3: when there is a toc that cannot be machine readable there should be the option for a nav doc
16:11:08 <garth> q?
16:11:08 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:12:40 <mgarrish> dauwhe: all html documents are machine readable because that's what UAs do - the question is more are we trying to create something they will be happy with - a user agent can do something just by taking all the anchor elements, for many books that will be useful - may not get you nesting, but could look at placement in the dom - better to look at what machines can do than constrain authors
16:12:40 <tzviya> ack tzv
16:12:44 <garth> q?
16:13:13 <garth> q+
16:14:53 <dauwhe> q+ to respond to tzviya's point
16:14:59 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #pwg
16:14:59 <mgarrish> tzviya: one of the things we've seen with epub is that the restrictions on epub table of contents are not awful - don't restrict people too much - but when there are multiple tables of contents I use the machine one - I think the simplest way to consensus is to reduce the restrictions and still allow authors to include what they need - you can still have two tables of contents
16:15:12 <tzviya> ack garth
16:15:16 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
16:15:28 <mgarrish> tzviya: the one that is processed by reading systems will be the one with somewhat restricted html
16:15:35 <JuanCorona> JuanCorona has joined #pwg
16:15:55 <dkaplan3> +1 tzviya
16:15:57 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:16:07 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:16:07 <Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to respond to tzviya's point
16:16:12 <mgarrish> garth: the epub restricted navigation document is successful but also need the option to allow more expansive tocs
16:16:39 <tzviya> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:16:44 <mgarrish> dauwhe: i think styling is orthoganal to the issue - what css uses to make it look nice is independent of the markup
16:17:15 <dauwhe> q+
16:17:20 <mgarrish> Bill_Kasdorf: it's not about making the toc look pretty but needing more flexibility - in education you need a longer table of contents with sidebars and other content
16:17:44 <mgarrish> tzviya: the proposal is not to restrict the number of tables of contents - only the markup for one
16:18:04 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:18:40 <dkaplan3> +1 dauwhe.
16:18:41 <tzviya> +1 to dauwhe
16:18:51 <mgarrish> dauwhe: if we were to adopt something like epub 3's restrictions we should look at whether we can relax the restrictions - like allowing either ul or ol as the root list element
16:18:52 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
16:19:00 <dkaplan3> But maybe allowing ul is one thing, but not allowing, say, sliders. :)
16:19:12 <mgarrish> dauwhe: what will give us the most benefit instead of just demanding one way
16:19:14 <romain> q+
16:19:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to both Tzviya and Dave
16:19:35 <ivan> q+
16:19:46 <mgarrish> tzviya: it sounds like we're coming to consensus that restrictions should be placed on the referenced table of contents - #2 in the github issue
16:19:47 <tzviya> ack  romain
16:20:36 <dauwhe> q+ to talk about examples
16:20:38 <tzviya> q+
16:21:02 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:21:05 <mgarrish> romain: putting restrictions on the html would be a way to help implementers extract the toc data - goes against the priorities of constituencies - authors should have the flexibility and the implementer should have to figure out the algorithms to extract - i would rather come up with an algorithm to extract the toc in a predictable manner
16:21:53 <garth> q+
16:22:30 <garth> q-
16:22:54 <mgarrish> ivan: i am trying to understand where we are - at this moment in the manifest we have a way to address the toc - are we saying that that element must have a structure we have to define - or is it required? if it is not required we can acknowledge the fact that there are two types we can provide - if the author doesn't want to use one she can use a different kind of toc but don't expect some
16:22:54 <mgarrish> regularity in the reading system
16:23:15 <garth> q?
16:23:18 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:23:18 <Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to talk about examples
16:24:05 <garth> q+
16:24:06 <Hadrien> Edge has a native UI for ToC as well
16:24:10 <dkaplan3> I disagree, dauwhe: I think it's arguably also AT centric
16:24:11 <mgarrish> dauwhe: I agree with what romain said and this discussion is very epub-centric - we are expecting that the UA will want to process and display the toc in an entirely different way - does not normally happen on the web
16:24:15 <tzviya> ack tz
16:24:25 <dkaplan3> q+
16:24:32 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Dave. This is an issue that should probably be a point of difference between a Web Publication and an EPUB.
16:25:16 <mgarrish> tzviya: unless we're saying there is a way to structure the content, it makes it harder to trigger an algorithm
16:25:43 <romain> q?
16:25:44 <mgarrish> tzviya: i like the idea of relaxing the restrictions, though
16:25:55 <tzviya> ack ga
16:26:28 <dauwhe> q+ to talk about examples
16:27:27 <mgarrish> garth: i don't think authors need to worry about this because tools will handle - if user agents don't do special things with WPs then I think we're wasting our time - having two pointers to tocs might be the best solution
16:27:49 <tzviya> ack dkaplan
16:28:45 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:28:45 <Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to talk about examples
16:28:56 <mgarrish> dkaplan: i don't want a machine to have to compile a toc
16:29:49 <mgarrish> dauwhe: i would like to require that everything in the linear reading order be in the table of contents - we need examples of tocs and see whether they can be machine processed and discover why not
16:29:49 <Avneesh> q+
16:29:54 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
16:30:46 <mgarrish> avneesh: from accessibility point of view the hierarchy of the publication is what makes it different from the web general - beyond machine readability some kind of restriction would help
16:32:28 <duga> q+
16:32:33 <romain> what happens when the author doesn't respect the restrictions? we have to specify what a UA must do then. But when we specify that, and unless we tell the UA it can ignore the toc, why do we need to specify the restrictions in the first place?
16:32:33 <tzviya> ack duga
16:32:36 <mgarrish> tzviya: in the real world we could get all kinds of tag soup in the toc
16:33:02 <mgarrish> brady: are you looking for things that will break? that's very easy - just include a picture of a table of contents
16:33:23 <mgarrish> dauwhe: so a table of contents must have links
16:33:34 <mgarrish> tzviya: which is an example of a restriction
16:34:12 <mgarrish> garth: it needs to have structure - nesting - so list elements - we've learned this lesson in epub
16:36:06 <mgarrish> romain: I don't see what kind of restriction would be useful - if the toc is useless that's the author's choice
16:36:12 <Avneesh> q+
16:36:48 <dkaplan3> I'd like to be able to tell AT how to navigate a wpub's TOC
16:37:19 <mgarrish> tzviya: the concern comes from UAs - they will be required to generate some kind of navigation - we need to have accessibility and multiple ways to access the content - if the author provides an image it won't help the UA
16:37:25 <garth> q?
16:38:30 <mgarrish> romain: we don't require accessibility - accessibility is something the author has to ensure - handling a toc that doesn't respect the restrictions will have to be handled no matter what
16:38:41 <George> q+
16:39:08 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
16:39:13 <mgarrish> romain: so long as we define how to extract data why do we need restrictions
16:39:25 <teenya_> teenya_ has joined #pwg
16:40:27 <tzviya> ack George
16:40:30 <mgarrish> avneesh: wcag talks about multiple ways but it doesn't define how the hierarchy must be presented - in epub we have lists - but if publisher is providing a toc that is clear to a sighted reader and not to blind then it is not accessible - having some rules ensure consistency
16:41:49 <mgarrish> george: having no doc-toc for a publication would be fine in some cases - if there is one pointed to in the manifest then it should be possible to evaluate what the UA is going to do with the markup
16:41:51 <garth> q?
16:42:34 <mgarrish> tzviya: validators on the web are nice to use but the content has to work even if content isn't validated
16:42:56 <ivan> q+
16:43:01 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:44:17 <mgarrish> ivan: at the moment we have the concept of a toc in the manifest - it is in the reading order or resource list - has to point to an html document which contains an element marked with role=doc-toc  - i propose that we have two: one with doc-toc and another with some other semantic
16:45:06 <tzviya> q+
16:45:20 <Hadrien> +1 to what ivan said, but need to discuss if this is in the context of WP or EPUB4
16:45:36 <mgarrish> ivan: the user agent has the option to put one or both tocs into the manifest - we then have the idea to play with restrictions - epub 4 might have stronger restrictions for reading systems
16:45:42 <tzviya> ack teenya_
16:45:44 <tzviya> ack tzviya
16:45:48 <Hadrien> also need to discuss if the second (optimized for machine readability) is HTML or directly in the manifest
16:46:27 <mgarrish> ivan: both could be marked as doc-toc but one has a stricter structure
16:47:04 <mgarrish> garth: both would be possible in WP
16:47:23 <mgarrish> ivan: in epub perhaps we only want the restricted one
16:47:47 <mgarrish> tzviya: what is the purpose of having two tables of contents?
16:48:15 <mgarrish> ivan: the user agent could decide if the restricted version isn't available if does nothing
16:48:30 <Hadrien> q+
16:48:36 <tzviya> ack Hadrien
16:48:43 <mgarrish> ivan: we could have a different rel value for the loosely-structured toc
16:49:07 <tzviya> q+
16:49:50 <mgarrish> Hadrien: I'm in favour of having two tocs, but what is the context - do we need two html nav elements or should the machine-readable one be purely in json
16:50:02 <ivan> q+
16:50:09 <garth> ack tzviya
16:50:09 <ivan> ack tzviya
16:51:38 <Hadrien> q+
16:51:41 <mgarrish> tzviya: if authors want to create a separate toc that's fine and it can be anywhere
16:52:10 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:52:13 <garth> q+
16:52:24 <clapierre> clapierre has left #pwg
16:53:04 <mgarrish> ivan: authors still have choice to provide one, none or both of the toc types - I'm not in favour of putting the toc in json as putting it in html will be simpler for authoring
16:53:08 <tzviya> ack Hadrien
16:54:00 <dkaplan3> Hadrien, Tzviya wasn't saying more confusing for UAs, but for authors
16:54:15 <tzviya> ack garth
16:54:17 <mgarrish> hadrien: having two documents shouldn't make things more complex - with the current toc you can only provide a way to get to it - with a machine readable the UA can present it - not complicated for UAs
16:55:03 <mgarrish> garth: I tend to think having them both html leaves open the possibility of having a toc that is both displayable and machine-readable
16:56:00 <mgarrish> tzviya: so the proposal is to have two table of contents - one structured and one with an open structured - you can have any of these, including none
16:56:00 <garth> +1
16:56:01 <dkaplan3> +0
16:56:05 <Hadrien> +1
16:56:05 <timCole> +1
16:56:05 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:56:06 <ivan> +1
16:56:07 <jbuehler> +1
16:56:09 <caitlingebhard> +1
16:56:10 <romain> -0.1
16:56:12 <derekjackson> +1
16:56:14 <garth> (max one structure, max one unstructured)
16:56:17 <Avneesh> +1
16:56:17 <rkwright> +1
16:56:18 <marisa> -1
16:56:18 <zheng_xu> +1
16:56:21 <EvanOwens> +1
16:56:27 <dauwhe> -0
16:56:56 <garth> s/structure/structured/
16:57:33 <mgarrish> dkaplan3: people are already confused by having too many choices in epub - worried that no one will get it right or understand why the possibilities exist
16:58:03 <mgarrish> romain: don't understand why the structured one when an algorithm can process the html
16:58:18 <dauwhe> q+
16:58:28 <zheng_xu> q+
16:58:30 <mgarrish> ivan: outlining algorithms are a bottomless pit
16:58:34 <dauwhe> q-
16:58:49 <mgarrish> romain: not to compile an outline but only to process the toc markup
16:59:30 <tzviya> ack zheng_xu
17:00:48 <ivan> q+
17:00:59 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:01:03 <mgarrish> tzviya: need to consider in the future that validation cannot be expected
17:01:42 <mgarrish> garth: a pull request to match the the proposal would be useful
17:02:26 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has left #pwg
17:02:54 <Karen> Karen has joined #pwg
17:07:29 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
17:15:11 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
17:15:33 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:15:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/27-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:15:33 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:15:33 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:15:33 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:15:33 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been George, dkaplan, tzviya, dauwhe, caitlingebhard, gpellegrino, ivan, Rachel, Teenya, rkwright, mgarrish, Garth, marisa, Hadrien,
17:15:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
17:15:36 <Zakim> ... derekjackson, BenSchroeter, Bill_Kasdorf, Avneesh, duga, clapierre, zheng_xu, romain, Chris_Maden