16:48:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
16:48:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/11/19-pwg-irc
16:48:15 <tzviya> Meeting: PWG Telco
16:48:22 <tzviya> Date: 2018-11-19
16:48:27 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya
16:51:25 <nickruffilo> nickruffilo has joined #pwg
16:54:24 <tzviya> regrets+ Tim_Cole, Teenya_Franklin, Caroline_Hayes
16:54:51 <tzviya> present+
16:55:03 <wolfgang> present+ wolfgang
16:55:54 <jbuehler> jbuehler has joined #pwg
16:56:02 <leonardr> leonardr has joined #pwg
16:56:05 <wendyreid> present+
16:56:14 <ivan> ivan has joined #pwg
16:56:21 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
16:56:49 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
16:56:49 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
16:56:49 <ivan> Chair: wendy
16:56:49 <ivan> Date: 2018-11-19
16:56:49 <ivan> Regrets+ rkwright, vlad, tcole, chayes
16:56:49 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Nov/0026.html
16:56:50 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting 2018-11-19: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Nov/0026.html
16:57:01 <leonardr> Present+ Leonard
16:57:39 <nickruffilo> scribenick: NickRuffilo
16:57:56 <Rachel> present+
16:58:00 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya
16:58:07 <ivan> present+
16:58:21 <ivan> present+ rachel
16:58:31 <ivan> present+ tzviya
16:58:46 <ivan> present+ nickruffilo
16:59:25 <ivan> present+ wendyreid
16:59:54 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
17:00:00 <ivan> present+ george
17:00:04 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
17:00:05 <ivan> present+ wolfgang
17:00:06 <zheng_xu> zheng_xu has joined #pwg
17:00:12 <laudrain> present+
17:00:12 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
17:00:16 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
17:00:16 <josh> present+
17:00:16 <zheng_xu> present+
17:00:17 <Avneesh> present+
17:00:21 <marisa> present+
17:00:28 <George> George has joined #pwg
17:00:34 <JunGamo> present+
17:00:36 <dauwhe> present+
17:00:39 <George> present+ George
17:00:46 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
17:01:00 <franco> present+
17:01:07 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
17:01:07 <jbuehler> present+
17:01:15 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
17:02:02 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #pwg
17:02:09 <bigbluehat> present+
17:02:20 <ivan> regrets+ teenya
17:02:24 <romain> present+
17:02:47 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
17:03:05 <BenSchroeter> present+
17:03:28 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
17:03:36 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
17:03:46 <gpellegrino> present+
17:04:00 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-11-12-pwg.html
17:04:08 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Last week's minutes - comments?
17:04:15 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes accepted
17:04:37 <ivan> Topic: F2F meeting
17:04:54 <MustlazMS> MustlazMS has joined #pwg
17:04:58 <MustlazMS> present+
17:05:10 <mgarrish> present+
17:05:37 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Minutes approved.  Last week - after the meeting - we mentioned that we're planning a spring face-to-face in Cambridge Mass at Google's office.  This is our tentative date - 6th and 7th of May.  It's graduation season, so hotels can be pricey.
17:05:56 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
17:05:58 <nickruffilo> ...: We're working with the google co-ordinator, but Air BNB might work for people.
17:06:08 <duga> present+
17:06:20 <nickruffilo> Marisa: Is there an address so we can look?
17:06:34 <derekjackson> derekjackson has joined #pwg
17:06:41 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Not far from Kendall square - but very close to public transportation.  Next call we'll have more details.
17:06:41 <ivan> present+ marisa
17:06:58 <nickruffilo> ...: Wendy, please move on to the new agenda format suggestion
17:06:59 <laurent_> laurent_ has joined #pwg
17:07:22 <ivan> Map for the kendall sq. google: https://goo.gl/maps/MQsWTNtDA792
17:07:41 <nickruffilo> Wendy: We've proposed a 2-week in advanced agenda format, so the chairs will propose 2 agendas (sent on thursdays) in conjunction with earlier agenda, we will also provide explainers on the agenda, so whatever topic we plan on discussing will have context.
17:07:42 <ivan> topic: agenda planning for future
17:08:39 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: If anyone wants to help do the summaries in GitHub - please let us know.  It is quite a bit of work and we need help.
17:08:42 <ivan> topic: Use cases
17:08:54 <ivan> present+ franco
17:08:55 <nickruffilo> ...: First item is use cases and the MVP.  Franco - can you talk?
17:09:34 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
17:09:38 <nickruffilo> Franco: I've completed the mapping to the WP spec for requirements.  Each requirements have an OL with references to the WP spec.  For the use case requirements I've add an additional requirement - around the TOC, if anyone has things they'd like to add about that.
17:10:04 <User2> User2 has joined #pwg
17:10:05 <tzviya> UCR https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/
17:10:20 <nickruffilo> ...: We were talking about the structure of the document itself - adding IDs, data-attributes - we can sort them and gather them into a table to indicate the types of cases and which area of the publishing industry or items strictly to the User Agent.
17:10:38 <josh> q+
17:11:09 <nickruffilo> ...: What leads me to the MVP is - Josh had the idea of tier-ing, but we need to get to the MVP first.  Related to MVP - how - are we talking about the user agents or the WP itself?  Is it how we want the UA to react with the WP, or how we want to talk about it...
17:11:19 <ivan> q+
17:11:27 <nickruffilo> ...: Where would the affordances link to here?  etc..
17:11:27 <tzviya> ack josh
17:12:02 <nickruffilo> Josh: I actually got these in just seconds before the meeting but based on conversations I've had, I've gotten some feedback from Ivan and others, I've abandoned the numbered tiers... (if you look at this link...)
17:12:06 <josh> https://cdn.staticaly.com/gh/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/conformance-tiers/index.html#conformance-tiers
17:13:00 <nickruffilo> ...: This link shows the new, easier to understand, proposal.  Have minimal requirements that coresspond to the MPV then 3 groups of others.  They aren't necessarily stackable tiers, you could have minimal + any of the optionals.  They don't necessarily have to be stacked, etc.
17:13:01 <DanielWeck> DanielWeck has joined #pwg
17:13:23 <DanielWeck> present+ (sorry, was caught up in other work)
17:13:34 <nickruffilo> ...: You could just support minimal + packaging, or minimal + customization, etc.  That allows us better ways of thinking about things.  One question Franco just asked was - does this apply to the document or the user agent...
17:13:41 <ivan> q-
17:13:43 <zheng_xu> q+
17:13:45 <ivan> +1 to josh
17:14:00 <nickruffilo> ...: My answer is that they apply to the user agent and how it conforms to the WP.  You can have a WP that includes tons of functionality, but the conformance is how much the UA supports.
17:14:02 <tzviya> ack zheng_xu
17:14:02 <ivan> s/(sorry, was caught up in other work)//
17:14:54 <nickruffilo> Jeff: I agree with the MVP.  We need to keep aware that the features of MVP are testable through a UA.  Shrinking an MVP to make it a baby step - if we can define a way that UA can switch to reading mode...
17:15:27 <nickruffilo> ...: Even though we can define progress, but to make it take the w3c approach and recommendations to RC, this will make it more successful, and we can recieve feedback from UA or publishers, then we can make the next step.
17:16:07 <nickruffilo> ...: A bigger MVP or extended.  I recommend we start small.  The other thing is that I don't feel we need to make something close to epub.  A publisher can read the specification and make what they need.  I don't think we can catch up with epub that soon.
17:16:26 <nickruffilo> ...: A baby-step can let the UA switch to reading mode and be testable for each UA.
17:16:34 <bigbluehat> q+
17:16:40 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:16:41 <nickruffilo> Tzivya: Maybe we should have done MVP then use cases.
17:16:56 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/infrastructure.html#conforming-document
17:17:40 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: Josh - I like the new label levels than the numbers.  HTML 5 (just linked) has conformance classes that are even more described - I'm wondering how much of this could help with the decisions were making now.  It's helpful when thinking about what might affect certain clients and not other clients.
17:17:58 <nickruffilo> ...: These put things into document - or dismiss them.  That might be helpful.
17:18:04 <josh> +1 to HTML conformance example
17:19:05 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Before switching to MVP - You've done great work, but it sounds like it's separate.  It might be helpful to just get on the phone and ensure you're working towards the same goal.  Sounds like you're working on other parts, and not conflicting, but worth going in the same direction.
17:19:06 <ivan> q+
17:19:37 <ivan> Topic: Minimal Viable Product (MVP)
17:19:53 <nickruffilo> ...: On the MVP - I went through the TPAC meeting minutes.  I pulled together the notes on what people said they felt was necessary for the minimum.  One thing we need to define - we've had questions about where we're opening this file...
17:20:46 <nickruffilo> ...: Many people - especially George, about the 1) Omnipresent TOC always accessible. 2) ability to navigate through default reading order, 3) being able to nagivate in the right direction (left-right, vertical, etc)
17:21:10 <nickruffilo> ...: Not brought up in TPAC and possibly not part of TPAC is the addressability (a URL for the whole publication or sub-resources)
17:22:02 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I was looking at the Minimal notes that Josh did and it nicely maps to what we did at TPAC besides one thing.  The TOC example was done by Franco separately, so it hasn't been merged it.  It should appear as part of the minimal.
17:22:20 <nickruffilo> ...: The minimal thing is pretty much inline with what we've said.
17:23:05 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: We might need to go back and review...  Perhaps this is a good way to look at what we need.  We've been trying to figure otu what is lacking - such as 'web publications should have all functionaity of the web' and that they should have all metadata elements.
17:23:24 <tzviya> https://cdn.staticaly.com/gh/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/conformance-tiers/index.html#conformance-tiers
17:23:40 <dauwhe> q?
17:23:44 <nickruffilo> ...: Discoverability is something we have not addressed - it's an interesting discussion...
17:23:47 <nickruffilo> q+
17:24:04 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:24:20 <dauwhe> q+
17:24:33 <tzviya> ack nickruffilo
17:24:35 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I don't understand what must - if the web publication must be easily discovered, it has a URL and we have that, but differentiating between essential and non-essential, i'm not sure where we noted that in the UCR
17:25:04 <tzviya> nickruffilo: I think the only think that makes sense as a requirement for discoverability is a URL
17:25:22 <tzviya> ... I don't think we need to define SEO
17:25:33 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:25:57 <dauwhe> http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/
17:26:06 <nickruffilo> Dave: I've talked to some web people who've looked at our requirements pages and I fear they will look at our MVP and say 'the web can already do all of this' (see link).
17:26:24 <zheng_xu> (have to leave, fire drill... sorry)
17:26:39 <josh> q+
17:26:42 <ivan> q+
17:26:45 <tzviya> ack josh
17:26:48 <nickruffilo> ...: It meets all requirements - every page has a nice button at the bottom that takes you to the TOC.  The arrow graphics to get to next and previous.  I think we need a better story than this to convince people that we need new features on the web platform
17:28:09 <nickruffilo> Josh: Maybe it's not required for MVP, but one more compelling use case in requirement 4 is having to do with offline-ability.  Some young lady wants stock prices, but when she's offline, the stock price doesn't need to be read, but she can still read the publication.  That's kind of an ambiguous rule.  It should be said, I haven't really critisized the use cases, just re-organized.
17:28:23 <nickruffilo> ...: That specific requirement might be ambiguous or unnecessary.
17:28:25 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:28:42 <ivan> https://hpbn.co/
17:29:11 <dauwhe> https://resilientwebdesign.com
17:29:29 <dauwhe> q+
17:29:34 <nickruffilo> Ivan: To try to answer Dave - yes, there are lots of things that can be done.  I usually put a different example (link pasted).  It can be offlinable.   You can do publications on the web today that can do all of these things.  With high-performance browsing, it's a good example.  But, in order to do that today, you have to do relatively complex work (the publisher has to) that is highly specific to the publication.
17:30:24 <nickruffilo> ...: There is javascript, service workers, and all that jazz.  It lists all the HTML documents, etc.  To make it this way, it just doesn't scale.  What we're trying to do is to make this process as standard as possible, it would be much easier and standard to create books like this.
17:30:30 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:30:37 <nickruffilo> ...: Yes it's doable but it requires a PHD and Masters to do it...
17:30:58 <bigbluehat> q+
17:31:06 <nickruffilo> Dave: I agree, but they'll come back with 'every website has to do this' and 'you can just make a framework'  I'm worried that our message isn't going to be compelling to the browser vendors.
17:31:23 <nickruffilo> q+ (i think dave's comments are exactly what MVP needs to answer)
17:31:59 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: we need to think about things like offlining - if it's something we want to be an MVP.  Whichever tool needs to determine what items are and are not essential when it comes to offlining as well.
17:32:04 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:32:42 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: The core component of what Dave is saying is that there are web-publications already on the web.  They all share similar needs and have similar desires, like an immersive reading experience where you stay within the bounds of the publication.
17:33:10 <nickruffilo> ...: There are commonality among all of them - along with the simple things we'd want as humans to read things on the web.  What do people publishing to the web do now, and what can we offer them to make it simpler.
17:33:53 <nickruffilo> ...: There are lots of things we can do.  How we get them into the web platform, that's the question.  Readers want to be immersed.  They (authors/publishers) want to package it and not have to worry about it once it has been delivered.  Those are the pain points.
17:34:12 <nickruffilo> ...: Can they be done - yes.  Can we make it easier/reduce cost, yes...
17:34:44 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Taking a look at the candidates for requirements in the MVP.  But, the use case about offlining (requirement 4) it should be removed.
17:34:51 <nickruffilo> Josh: I'll clean it up and remove it.
17:35:06 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: 7 - data should be considered a resource as text and images is.
17:35:18 <bigbluehat> q+
17:35:19 <nickruffilo> ...: 8 - we need to uniquely define a web publication (addressability)
17:35:41 <nickruffilo> ...: Req 9: UA must treat a WP as a single item.
17:35:43 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:36:14 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: With 8, a unique identifier, are we talking about a unique identifier for the web pub, or something that uniquely defines it as a web publication?
17:36:44 <nickruffilo> ...: Yes, we have a URL, but does it come back as something unique that lets you know it's a web publication?
17:36:57 <ivan> +1 tzviya
17:37:16 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: I think if we word it as uniquely addressed as a web publication - that clarifies a bit.  So it'll be changed from identify to addressed
17:37:35 <nickruffilo> ...: 9 - this would be when we start expanding UAs.
17:38:12 <nickruffilo> ...: 10 - all constiuents and their resources need to be addressable.  Tim did significant work on this years ago and may want to go back to it.  We do not have a solution now for this.
17:38:15 <nickruffilo> q+
17:38:18 <tzviya> ack nickruffilo
17:39:16 <josh> q+
17:39:22 <ivan> q+
17:39:29 <nickruffilo> Tzivya: If items are unpackaged, it's not an issue.  If it is a packaged situation or superstructure, then it's an issue.  Same with an epub, you needed to create a CFI
17:39:32 <nickruffilo> q+
17:39:33 <tzviya> ack josh
17:39:52 <ivan> q-
17:39:56 <nickruffilo> Nick: is packaging part of MVP?
17:39:58 <tzviya> s/Tzivya/Tzviya
17:40:14 <bigbluehat> q+
17:40:16 <leonardr> Q+
17:40:25 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
17:40:29 <leonardr> Q-
17:40:34 <nickruffilo> Josh: If i'm publishing a web page, the images need addressable URLs.  I don't see the confusion here.  Everything that links to it - or it links to - needs it's own address.  It might be so simple we don't need to say it.
17:40:37 <tzviya> ack nickruffilo
17:40:40 <nickruffilo> q-
17:40:41 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:40:41 <ivan> ack nickruffilo
17:40:47 <dauwhe> q+
17:41:55 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: I think that uniquely identifying is handled by URLs.  What is not handled is pointing at "this image within the bound web publication" but to say I'm pointing at the chapter 3 resource within the book, that you become "in the book" and not just the resource.  The annotation stuff Tim was exploring was part of that.  Epub's packaging prevents this as none of the resources are addressable on their own.
17:42:18 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:42:27 <nickruffilo> ...: other packaging options may prevent that as well.  If I link you to the logo of a web-app, that wouldn't be known to be part of a web app.
17:42:52 <laurent_> q+
17:42:53 <nickruffilo> dave: Alot of these requirements are both obvious and impossible.  It's obvious that an image is going to have a URL, but the impossible part is to say that the image is part of some more complex structure.
17:42:55 <nickruffilo> q+
17:43:29 <tzviya> s/Alot/A lot
17:43:32 <tzviya> ack laurent_
17:43:34 <nickruffilo> ...: or an actual user requirement would be needed.  It's a referencing requirement - but I don't think it's the final requirement, it's something we think is a solution of the requirement.
17:44:10 <nickruffilo> Laurent: the text of the requirement is about stability.  If you look at the 2 usage examples, it's about how to reference something in a stable way.  It's just paraphrasing the good URI on the web.  It's about good practices, not about requirements.
17:44:14 <nickruffilo> q-
17:44:18 <bigbluehat> q+
17:44:29 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: This too needs to be re-written but should be moved out of the requirements.
17:44:30 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:44:58 <zheng_xu> zheng_xu has joined #pwg
17:45:22 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: One thing that haunts me as a publisher is 404.  What the URLs concept is fine, it's a rental economy.  It will change...  If we change anything it would be the stability.  I could put something out and you could depend on it forever.  That's part identification, but that's the kind of thing I'd like to see us address.
17:46:30 <josh> q+
17:46:44 <nickruffilo> tzviya: 11: for purpose of layout, each resource is it's own document.  Some people say they want this, some say they don't want it.  Some people say they just want CSS for some items, some say they want all items.  We have to figure out what we want here.  For counters, we may want it applied to everything.  For this requirement, we want each resource treated as a separate document...
17:46:58 <tzviya> ack josh
17:46:59 <ivan> q+
17:47:01 <nickruffilo> ...: we have to make rules for everyone, or we need to create a meta-rule that allows it to apply 'globally'
17:47:21 <duga> q+
17:47:22 <zheng_xu> q+
17:48:02 <nickruffilo> Josh: The term resource here is very confusing.  An image (figure) in one chapter of a book should not be treated as a separate content.  The intent is that chapter 1 and chapter 2 should not be mixed, so maybe we need a more specific term for a resource that means a document or sub-document.  The term resource is way too inclusive for this restriction
17:48:02 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:49:07 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I don't really understand this requirement.  With what you said with the CSS - if I author a book with several chapters, it's up to me to which CSS I refer to, and the global one will be the global one - but that duality already exists.  There is a question of the counter and I'm not sure how that should be address, and it's likely not a minimal viable thing, but what is here, in this requirement...
17:49:14 <nickruffilo> ...: as I understand it, can be handled by this today...
17:49:16 <duga> q-
17:49:18 <tzviya> ack duga
17:49:23 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: I'm not sure how this made it in...
17:49:42 <nickruffilo> Brady: Regardless of what people want - and I understand counters across documents would be great, but it'll never happen
17:49:47 <dauwhe> q+
17:50:19 <tzviya> ack zheng_xu
17:50:35 <nickruffilo> Jeff: Almost the same.  If publishers don't create content in a specific way, lets not mix the concepts.  CSS group would just ask "what is content created this way?"  The reading system shouldn't really have to do to handle this.
17:50:36 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:51:11 <josh> q+
17:51:17 <nickruffilo> Dave: I agree.  There is historical items here - where epub has put a bunch of documents in a single window so you could scroll through all content, but it's problematic when it comes to the web, which is why we've had statements like this.
17:51:38 <tzviya> ack josh
17:51:41 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Taking away the history - I think that, if that's the reason, that falls into the category of 'personalization.'  If we wanted to include that, it should be re-written.
17:52:00 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #pwg
17:52:02 <ivan> q+
17:52:03 <nickruffilo> Josh: Based on everyone's comments, I proposed that rec 11 is re-written, and the only use case is about counters.  I propose we kill it.
17:52:07 <clapierre> present+
17:52:08 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:52:52 <josh> q+
17:52:56 <nickruffilo> Ivan: It would be milder - we shouldn't remove it altogether - but make it clearer that we're referring to counters and continuity of them, but it would go into extended (or very extended) It would require some very special css.
17:53:01 <tzviya> ack josh
17:53:35 <nickruffilo> Josh: I'll move 11 to extended, but someone else who is more familiar with the intent of this requirement please edit it?
17:54:44 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: we have just a few minutes.  12 - there should be a means to navigate the preferred reading structure.  Look at the TOC requirements and see if you can make sense of this.  Look at navigating from the default reading order.
17:55:27 <ivan> q+
17:55:28 <nickruffilo> ...: We talked about that as an MVP, but any other item is outside of MVP.  So if it's right-to-left, the whole book is right-to-left.  If you have any other requirements, be in touch with Franco or Josh or open an issue in the GitHub.
17:55:37 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:56:25 <nickruffilo> Ivan: Once this is done, we should spend some time on the most boring thing - to reconcile the terminology between WP and this document.  'constituent resources' yet we might be using other terms - we need to figure out our terminology.  Lets have the whole structure done, then republish the note, etc.
17:56:47 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: We had proposed creating an MVP task force.  We got pretty far today.  Josh and Franco - would you like people to help with the UC document?
17:57:31 <zheng_xu> I can help if needed for MVP
17:57:49 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:57:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/19-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:57:49 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:57:49 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:57:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:57:49 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, wolfgang, wendyreid, Leonard, Rachel, ivan, nickruffilo, george, laudrain, josh, zheng_xu, Avneesh, marisa, JunGamo,
17:57:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
17:57:49 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has left #pwg
17:57:52 <Zakim> ... dauwhe, franco, jbuehler, bigbluehat, romain, BenSchroeter, Chris_Maden, gpellegrino, MustlazMS, mgarrish, duga, (sorry, was, caught, up, in, other, work), clapierre