15:29:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:29:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/03/11-pwg-irc
15:29:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwg
15:29:30 <tzviya> Meeting: PWG Weekly Telco
15:29:38 <tzviya> Date: 2019-30-11
15:29:46 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya
15:51:15 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:56:09 <tzviya> present+
15:56:39 <ivan> ivan has joined #pwg
15:56:44 <tzviya> regrets+ Rachel, Bill, Matt
15:57:20 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/11-pwg-minutes.html ivan
15:57:46 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:57:46 <wendyreid> present+
15:57:52 <dkaplan3> present+
15:58:01 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/11-pwg-minutes.html ivan
15:58:16 <nickruffilo> nickruffilo has joined #pwg
15:59:24 <ivan> present+
15:59:57 <laurent_> laurent_ has joined #pwg
16:00:04 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
16:00:15 <nickruffilo> scribenick: NickRuffilo
16:00:27 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:00:35 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
16:00:44 <laurent_> present+ Laurent
16:01:06 <Avneesh> present+
16:01:08 <laudrain> present+
16:01:39 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
16:01:49 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
16:02:08 <josh> present+
16:02:49 <CharlesL> present+
16:03:24 <nickruffilo> scribenick: NickRuffilo
16:03:25 <bigbluehat> present+
16:03:34 <dauwhe> present+
16:03:34 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-03-04-pwg
16:03:41 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:03:46 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:03:50 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:03:50 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Minutes from last week - any comments?  Minutes approved...
16:03:51 <garth> present+ Garth
16:04:12 <dauwhe> https://w3c.github.io/pwpub/spec/ocf-lite.html
16:04:27 <nickruffilo> ... The first item on the agenda - reviewing the document Laurent put together for packaging.  We aren't going to spend today coming up with a name - even though it needs it - but not today.
16:04:33 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes are accepted
16:04:53 <nickruffilo> ... Laurent - please give an overview.
16:04:56 <ivan> Topic: Packaging issues
16:05:11 <MustlazMS> MustlazMS has joined #pwg
16:05:22 <BenWaltersMS> BenWaltersMS has joined #pwg
16:05:29 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
16:05:34 <franco> present+
16:05:36 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:05:40 <nickruffilo> Laurent: This is the document that was updated by Ivan.  It includes terminology and puts two names - lightweight packaging format (LPF) and Web Publication Lightweight Package (also known as package)
16:05:43 <duga> present+
16:06:01 <MustlazMS> present+
16:06:32 <BenWaltersMS> present+
16:06:37 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
16:06:42 <marisa> present+
16:06:52 <nickruffilo> ... there are LPF complient user agents, LPF compliant files.  There is an intro that explains the use.  (reads from document).  B2C and B2C items.  There is some terminology that isn't totally finalized.  We would have to list every token inside..
16:07:28 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:07:33 <nickruffilo> ... there is a part 2 that is very short that states we're using ZIP format as a base - the ISO standard of ZIP.  Then we state that the package must include an entry page with HTML and/or a manifest JSONLD (the web application manifest)
16:08:20 <nickruffilo> ... we have issue 38 - where ivan is proposing changing the words of this section.  If HTML and JSONLD are both provided, then the primary entry page must make reference to the manifest.  A package may contain any of the files form any place.
16:08:22 <dauwhe> q?
16:09:17 <nickruffilo> ... We have a section about relative items.  There is section 3 about user agent performance which is empty and we don't know if we have to put something in or get rid of the section totally.  The end is a definition of the media type.  "application-wpub/zip"  .lpf would be the extension
16:09:40 <tzviya> q?
16:09:40 <nickruffilo> ... and that's it.  Questions?  Or we'll move to issues.
16:10:22 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/40
16:10:24 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/39
16:10:25 <ivan> Subtopic: Rec or not Rec?
16:10:25 <nickruffilo> Laurent: There are 2 - 40 and 39.  With the question - do we go rec or not.
16:10:34 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/39
16:11:03 <dauwhe> q+
16:11:06 <ivan> q+
16:11:07 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: so the question is - should we take this to rec track - a version of zip to rec track within the W3C.  I'm sure people have strong opinions about this.
16:11:07 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:11:50 <laudrain> q+
16:11:50 <nickruffilo> Dave: I would like to hear from people with more experience in W3c land.  We are trying to standardize zip with well known file locations.  What benefit do we gain from rec track on this?  How do we test it?  What is a browser's obligation?
16:11:51 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:12:12 <tzviya> q+
16:12:35 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:12:52 <nickruffilo> Ivan: To react on that - because we refer to an ISO standard, from the W3C point of view, it becomes trivial.  Taking this to rec track would be relatively simple testing around user agents doing the right thing with wpub content within the document.
16:13:04 <garth> q?
16:13:06 <garth> q+
16:13:10 <rkwright> present+ rkwright
16:13:24 <nickruffilo> ... if we decide to go rec track, I'll talk to ralph about this to test the waters.  I didn't want to do it so far, because I wanted agreement amongst ourselves first.  I don't think there is a big problem, and I think browsers already handle it...
16:13:51 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask what "handle" .zip means in the context of browsers
16:13:51 <dauwhe> q+
16:13:54 <nickruffilo> ... most of the testing will have to be done for Audiobooks - in the sense of following what wpub says.  I intend to talk to ralph about that, but I don't see that as a major problem.
16:13:56 <bigbluehat> q-
16:13:59 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask what "handle" .zip means in the context of browsers
16:14:20 <bigbluehat> q-
16:14:21 <tzviya> ack laudrain
16:14:27 <nickruffilo> ... I think that having a rec track stamp on it, together with audiobook format, gives more weight to the standard.  Having an audiobook format without a package seems odd.
16:15:06 <nickruffilo> Luc: I agree with Dave's questions - do we really need browsers to handle it, and I'm not sure they already do.  Aren't we trying to bring something somewhat specific to the whole community?
16:15:12 <garth> q?
16:15:13 <laurent_> q+
16:15:14 <nickruffilo> ...  Does it bring zip to all the internet?
16:15:16 <tzviya> ack tzviya
16:16:19 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: When it comes to interoperability - our section says none.  What we learned from epub was that when we changed the mimetype - without providing information about what should be done with it - user agents, in particular browsers, do not handle it.  If we propose it, rec track or not, we need to define what it means to process it.  And we have not done that.
16:16:32 <tzviya> ack garth
16:16:32 <ivan> +1 to tzviya
16:16:36 <nickruffilo> ... if there is a section in this document, or added to the use cases and requirements, we need to note what it is to handle this type of zip.
16:17:08 <nickruffilo> Garth: I was going to re-chime in with what ivan closed with.  In presuming we are going to go down a rec track for audiobooks, then we pretty much have to go down a rec track with this.  Audiobooks without a way to package is not interesting.
16:17:10 <tzviya> q?
16:17:13 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:17:54 <nickruffilo> Dave: People have already noted that browsers dont' really do anything with zip right now.  It also occurs to me that it would be cool if you pointed a browser at the URL of one of these things and it opened index.html and processed the manifest, but is that really what we're asking for?
16:18:00 <bigbluehat> q+ to note the W3C has been here before https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
16:18:14 <tzviya> ack laurent_
16:18:16 <nickruffilo> ... the question of an audiobooks user agent when it comes to this - are we asking they load things directly from the manifest?
16:18:31 <franco_> franco_ has joined #pwg
16:19:04 <nickruffilo> Laurent: it will be difficult to ask browsers to download the zip file and read them from the inside, especially if the zip is huge.  This happens with epub - if the epub is too big, it doesn't work as well.  The zip file is for file exchange and download, it isn't meant to be read by browsers.
16:19:51 <nickruffilo> ... Either we consider anything that is able to recieve as a rec must be consumed by browsers.  In this case, there is an issue.  Or we consider that publishing will build something that works for the web, but, when taken out of the web it is packaged.
16:19:55 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:19:55 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to note the W3C has been here before https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
16:19:59 <nickruffilo> ... we can't say that user agents will consume that.
16:20:10 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#zip-archive
16:20:11 <garth> +1 Laurent
16:20:49 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: I wanted to mention that W3C was down this before - on the widget spec.  It's titled web-apps.  It's as close to what we've talked about in the whole of web publications.  It was concieved as a similar system with a manifest and put in a zip file - opened by a web browser.
16:21:28 <ivan> q+
16:21:41 <nickruffilo> ... it ultimately failed.  In part because of zip and in part because of what should go int the manifest, and in part that it wasn't enhancable.  The zip related conversion is in the same items.  We should be working more in web principles.  Web-based distribution needs to be considered.
16:21:49 <laurent_> q+
16:21:49 <tzviya> q+ to talk about working with all UAs not just some
16:21:52 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:21:59 <nickruffilo> ... we can have the package be something that is outside, something that publishers use to distribute to retailers.
16:22:50 <nickruffilo> Ivan: we should be careful not to open up certain conversations.  The ideal approach for the browser is a packaging format that is built for the browser.  What we have here - which is why we call it lightweight - we know it's not the full solution for web-based publishing.  We should not now, put on requirements, against the document as if it was the final solution.
16:23:38 <nickruffilo> ... We have to be careful how we say that.  In this sense, we can say it's not a recommendation - but I'm very curious what the publishing community would say if we said there was an audiobook standard without a packaging standard.  We could say the primary usage for the package is for non-browser reading systems.
16:24:14 <tzviya> ack laurent_
16:24:16 <nickruffilo> ... to answer one note that Laurent noted - we can say the primary target is for recommendation to user agent to handle wpub structure - awaiting a future package.
16:24:23 <dauwhe> q+
16:24:47 <ivan> q+
16:25:27 <nickruffilo> Laurent: If we don't make a rec for this document, we could leave it to the community as epub 3.2 for the moment (short term).  I think it's not the same.  Epub 3.2 is the latest IDPF standard, this is new...  This is a spinoff of OCF.  If there is no standardization, just a note from W3C, it won't have any traction.  If we don't go Rec with W3C, we'll have to go Rec elsewhere.
16:25:43 <tzviya> ack tzviya
16:25:43 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about working with all UAs not just some
16:26:06 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I think the alternative is not to make a community group document.  The alternative is to publish a w3c note from this group.  It has the presence of the working group, and the weight and we can refer to that we don't have a web packaging standard.
16:26:26 <Avneesh_> Avneesh_ has joined #pwg
16:26:38 <ivan> q-
16:26:49 <garth> q?
16:26:55 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: We're in a difficult position.  We need to have something until there is a web packaging standard.  I don't like doing a intermediary, but we need to.  I'd like to publish a note, with a line in it that when we have a web packaging spec, we will use that, but until, we are using zip.
16:26:57 <garth> q+
16:27:11 <ivan> q+
16:27:15 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:27:19 <nickruffilo> ... I want to add a comment that we're waiting for the web packaging standard for a user agent.
16:27:19 <Avneesh_> +1 to WG note
16:27:59 <nickruffilo> Dave: For audiobooks, I can easily imagine having a spec where you put all these mp3 files in a folder, put in a manifest, then send it to your distributor somehow.  I don't see a rec for that, if we dont' expect a user agent to be reading that.  I could just use TAR...
16:28:21 <tzviya> ack garth
16:28:24 <nickruffilo> ... A note is a better choice than a rec.  I don't see packaging being at the essence of what we're doing.  It just lets us get to the next step without losing pieces.
16:29:03 <nickruffilo> Garth: I think ivan and Dave's suggestion of the note makes sense.  I would NOT want to see us make a commitment to, 'switch to/transition to' I would think we would want to augment with.
16:29:04 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:29:49 <nickruffilo> Ivan: Two things.  First - I think, nevertheless, if the working group agrees, I'd like to discuss this with ralph.  Then I'll come back to the group with his reaction.  Regardless of whether it is a rec or not a rec, we should write the document as complete as possible.
16:30:28 <tzviya> +1 to ivan
16:30:31 <nickruffilo> ,,, things that talk about what the user agent should do - we should write that down as if it were a rec.  It's important for everyone and we need to take it seriously.  Even if it is only a note, I don't want it any weaker than if it was a rec.
16:30:33 <laudrain> +1 to Ivan
16:31:47 <nickruffilo> Laurent: It's a new issue with conformance issues that we'll need to address.  As for this being a note - i do agree that we can keep it as a working group note.  At least for the year.  It will help finalizing the audiobook profile and getting the first implementations of that.  Once we have implementations we will be able to decide if we move to rec or not, and we won't have lost time.
16:31:52 <laudrain> +1 to Laurent
16:32:08 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: So the proposal is that this becomes a working group note.  Do we have a resolution on that?
16:32:18 <tzviya> Proposal: Packaging To be named format will be a WG Note
16:32:22 <garth> +1
16:32:22 <ivan> +1
16:32:24 <duga> +1
16:32:24 <nickruffilo> +1
16:32:25 <tzviya> +1
16:32:25 <laudrain> +1
16:32:25 <wendyreid> +1
16:32:26 <josh> +1
16:32:27 <geoffjukes> +1
16:32:28 <Avneesh> +1
16:32:30 <BenSchroeter> ++1
16:32:30 <laurent_> +1
16:32:30 <CharlesL> +1
16:32:31 <rkwright> +1
16:32:33 <dkaplan3> +1
16:32:40 <bigbluehat> +0
16:33:01 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: OK - it is resolved.
16:33:05 <ivan> resolved: Packaging To be named format will be a WG Note
16:33:48 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: the next issue is about re-organizing the repo and renaming.  We do need a name and short name but I don't think it's work a discussion - please submit any suggestions you have though.
16:34:01 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/38
16:34:09 <ivan> Suptopic: roposed changes to 2.2
16:34:28 <nickruffilo> Laurent: The issue opened by Ivan - 38 - This one is an easy one.  It's an extension of the wording in section 2.  I made it very light originally (in 2.2) but Ivan would like it to have a bit more meat.
16:34:57 <nickruffilo> Dave: We're talking about 2 different documents here?
16:35:12 <nickruffilo> Dave: it says we have the same section number in the other document...
16:35:19 <nickruffilo> Ivan: Absolute co-incidence
16:35:29 <ivan> q+
16:35:34 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:36:15 <nickruffilo> Ivan: Let me explain.  It's mostly terminology.  It's an editorial question.  The only difference - which is a technical difference - in the current document, the JSONLD document has a fixed name.  From the WPUB point of view, the entry page can point to any manifest.
16:36:51 <nickruffilo> ... so if someone creates an audiobook with an entry page, they can name the manifest whatever they want.  Technically speaking, this is the only thing that is a little bit different.  Otherwise, I think it's mostly editorial to make the text more firm.
16:37:21 <nickruffilo> Laurent: it's about the renaming of index.html and I totally agree.   Personally, I agree, so I can put it in the draft.
16:37:35 <bigbluehat> q+
16:37:40 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:37:56 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: I was going to ask for clarification on naming requirements.
16:38:17 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Right now document.html and mainfest.jsonld are required.
16:38:38 <tzviya> s/document.html/entry.html
16:38:41 <nickruffilo> Laurent: If you want the user agent to find them easily, then yes, but we can try to relax them as ivan proposed.
16:38:47 <ivan> q+
16:39:04 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:39:36 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I think there is a 3rd one Laurent that may be worth discussing.  Is it really necessary to have a separate section on relative URIs when there is already a section written in the WPUB document.  There's only one place it should be.
16:40:00 <ivan> Suptopic: signature
16:40:02 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/31
16:40:18 <nickruffilo> Laurent: I'll review the WP document and see if we can remove the additional one.  There is one thing we could possibly discuss.  Issue 31 about signatures.  It seems there is a sort of consensus in OCF - there is a notion of signature in the package.
16:41:16 <nickruffilo> ... Maybe it would be better to use MD5 or hash to the resources, and not pretend to sign the document.  We have to choose between these two levels.  We either want security for the node, or signature as an anti-hacking proof.
16:41:33 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Wendy - was this one item you wanted to discuss as a larger issue?
16:41:44 <nickruffilo> Wendy: Yes, this is a spec issue and not exclusive to audiobooks.
16:42:10 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: While it primarly effects packaging, it can be done in a non-packaged wpub, so it's an issue that's already on the wpub tracker.
16:42:13 <ivan> related to https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/398
16:42:13 <dauwhe> https://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/
16:42:33 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Lets address this next week or the following week.
16:42:40 <nickruffilo> Laurent: OK - we'll see that later.
16:43:10 <ivan> Topic: horizontal reviews for privacy and security
16:43:12 <tzviya> https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/
16:43:15 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Part of horizontal review is a security and privacy review.  Does anyone want to volunteer to help filling out the questionnaire.
16:43:30 <dauwhe> q+
16:43:32 <nickruffilo> ... If you feel you have expertise in this area, and you can help us fill that out - please let us know.
16:43:34 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:44:11 <nickruffilo> Dave: This is one of the things that worries me because this stuff does really require steeper expertise than any of us have.  The fact that font-family names are a security risk doesn't always occur to me.  Stakes can be very high...
16:44:15 <laudrain> +1 to Dave
16:44:26 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: that's the feedback that I'm providing to those redesigning horizontal review.
16:45:12 <CharlesL> I am with APA
16:45:18 <CharlesL> sure
16:45:26 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Continuing on this topic - we need to do a formal review with the accessible group.  It's generally someone working closely with APA.  If anyone is working with/for APA and you want to work with helping to get things done...
16:45:38 <ivan> q+
16:45:43 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:46:32 <nickruffilo> Ivan: I wanted to report back that I've been hearing about internationalization and primarily directionality.  It's still pending.  Up to now i have not been successful.
16:46:52 <garth> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TB-_KCg97smmjcsbIVpi728qduOwESr3Og91-2Gtd4/edit
16:47:05 <ivan> Topic: F2F agenda
16:47:51 <nickruffilo> Benjamin: I'm going ot paste a link.  Tzviya and Wendy and I spent some time on a face-to-face document.  On wednesday.  We have some location information.  There are 4 important sections to contribute to.  Agenda item requests.  Everyone should have edit rights.  Do not delete other suggestions, please only add.
16:48:01 <tzviya> s/Benjamin/Garth
16:48:28 <nickruffilo> ... there are two RSVP sections - one for remote, one for in person.  Lastly, at the very bottom, there's a point about dinner.  If you're up for sponsoring dinner, let us know.
16:48:30 <garth> q?
16:48:54 <garth> q?
16:48:56 <nickruffilo> ... I did note that we've had someone from Microsoft, whom we haven't had in a while, so let him say hi
16:49:32 <nickruffilo> Ben: Sorry for the long silence, it took us a while for us to figure out our next steps.  I want to share that our first one - Moustafa and I are now not working on books in edge anymore.  The 2nd thing is that ...
16:50:10 <nickruffilo> ... edge is being re-imagined on top of chromium.  That's a big effort.  Chromium doesn't have native epub support, so the first version of the new edge will nto support epub.  But we are committed to it and we're working towards that.
16:50:52 <nickruffilo> ... Since we're not actively working on ebooks, we will not be active in the group but we will be looking to recommend others to be joining who are active.  Thank you for the good will and we're sorry we have to leave.
16:51:00 <nickruffilo> Mustapha: Thank you for having us.
16:51:02 <laudrain> thnaks to you Ben and Mustapha
16:51:11 <garth> +1 — Thanks & sad.
16:51:37 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Let us know how we can bring epub to chromium
16:51:52 <nickruffilo> Ben: Well noted - we'll pass that along.  It's been a pleasure and we've learned quite a bit from this experience.  Thank you.
16:51:53 <garth> q?
16:52:01 <nickruffilo> Tzviya: Thank you.  And thanks for coming back to let us know.
16:52:18 <Avneesh> q+
16:52:24 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
16:52:45 <ivan> avneesh & janina rock!
16:52:54 <nickruffilo> Avneesh: A note about the accessibilty review.  it's already in progress.  During DPAC there was an overview.  So quite a bit of work has been done.
16:53:48 <tzviya> s/DPAC/TPAC
16:54:18 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has left #pwg
16:54:39 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #pwg
16:54:42 <BenWaltersMS> BenWaltersMS has left #pwg
16:58:39 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
17:00:22 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
17:05:06 <Karen> Karen has joined #pwg
17:09:06 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:09:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/11-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:09:06 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:09:06 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:09:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:09:06 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, wendyreid, dkaplan, ivan, Laurent, Avneesh, laudrain, josh, CharlesL, bigbluehat, dauwhe, BenSchroeter, Garth, franco,
17:09:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
17:09:09 <Zakim> ... duga, MustlazMS, BenWaltersMS, marisa, rkwright, +1