15:38:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:38:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/04/01-pwg-irc
15:38:05 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:38:05 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:38:05 <ivan> Chair: Tzviya
15:38:05 <ivan> Date: 2019-04-01
15:38:05 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Mar/0034.html
15:38:05 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-03-01: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Mar/0034.html
15:38:33 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-04-01: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Mar/0034.html
15:40:31 <tzviya> regrets+ Dave_Cramer
15:57:12 <tzviya> present+
15:57:25 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
15:58:52 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
15:59:50 <ivan> present+
16:00:30 <Rachel> present+
16:00:30 <rkwright> present+ rkwright
16:00:36 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
16:00:59 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
16:01:12 <wendyreid> present+
16:01:16 <romain> present+
16:01:21 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
16:01:22 <franco> present+
16:01:38 <JunGamo> present+
16:02:40 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
16:03:09 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
16:04:02 <tzviya> zakim, pick a victim
16:04:02 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Rachel
16:04:22 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:04:29 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
16:04:30 <romain> scribe: romain
16:04:31 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:04:36 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:04:37 <CharlesL> present+
16:04:42 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:04:44 <George> George has joined #pwg
16:04:46 <marisa> present+
16:04:56 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-03-25-pwg
16:05:00 <romain> topic: appoving last week minutes
16:05:02 <George> present+ George
16:05:06 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes approved
16:05:08 <romain> tzviya: any comments or feedback?
16:05:09 <Avneesh> present+
16:05:13 <romain> … minutes approved
16:05:29 <ivan> Topic: overview of the new version of the WPUB doc
16:05:32 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/378
16:05:36 <romain> topic: Web Pub doc reorganization
16:05:56 <romain> mattg: I've done a couple of PR merges
16:06:10 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:06:11 <romain> … we said the ambition was to pull apart the manifest from  Web Pub
16:06:19 <laudrain> present+
16:06:22 <romain> … so audiobooks may not conflict with Web Pub
16:06:29 <romain> … we split it in 3 parts
16:06:49 <romain> … part 1 is the abstract manifest, shared with all digital publications
16:07:17 <romain> … the section largely looks the same as it did (manifest, IDL, etc), just generalized
16:07:51 <romain> … 2.6 properties have been generlized as well, categories are now defined for each property
16:08:18 <romain> … it will help with extensibility, but also helps describing the property type
16:08:38 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:08:40 <romain> … the most recent update was to move the manifest lifecycle out of this section as well
16:08:47 <garth> present+ Garth
16:09:39 <romain> … once you have the manifest, the process tends to be the same accross the different formats
16:09:49 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:09:53 <romain> … Ivan generalized the steps between the different manifests
16:10:30 <rkwright> present+ rkwright
16:10:33 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
16:10:50 <rkwright> GTM isn't working for me.  Am silent for now.
16:10:58 <romain> s/out of this section/into this section/
16:11:12 <josh> present+
16:11:16 <romain> … part 2 is about Web publication
16:11:34 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:11:34 <User2> User2 has joined #pwg
16:12:09 <romain> … all the sections say how it extends from the general manifest section, so no need to repeat
16:12:20 <romain> … the rest of it is unchanged
16:12:43 <romain> … part 3 is where we intend to define how to extend the manifest, and compatbility requirements
16:12:58 <tzviya> q?
16:13:00 <ivan> q+
16:13:13 <romain> … that's the quick summary of the latest changes, questions welcome
16:13:13 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:13:28 <mateus> mateus has joined #pwg
16:13:41 <romain> ivan: one more thing to emphasize: in part 3 we define what is needed when you define a new profile (audio profile will be a test case)
16:14:14 <romain> … a profile can define extra steps in canonicalization, extra checks, etc. the extension points are well defined
16:14:20 <mateus> present+
16:14:36 <romain> tzviya: other questions, comments?
16:14:38 <George> q+
16:14:46 <tzviya> ack George
16:15:00 <romain> George: must there be a profile for all formats?
16:15:07 <ivan> q+
16:15:11 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:15:15 <romain> … if you want to do a single file journal article, would that be a profile?
16:15:19 <romain> ivan: in theory, no.
16:15:39 <laurent_> laurent_ has joined #pwg
16:15:46 <laurent_> present+ laurent
16:15:47 <romain> … the question will be if for some categoires there are requirements that make it necessary to have a specific profile
16:16:09 <romain> … e.g. if having an author is a MUST, then you need a profile (as the generic rule is a SHOULD)
16:16:51 <romain> … or an audiobook could say all entries in reading order must be audio files
16:17:22 <romain> tzviya: for things like a basic journal article, which is not different from HTML, I don't expect people to start using it
16:17:41 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:17:50 <romain> George: the base Web Pub would support trade books, and text books?
16:17:54 <tzviya> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:17:57 <romain> ivan: as far as I can see, yes
16:18:20 <romain> Bill_Kasdorf: would it be reasonable to say that a Web page of a journal article is inherently a Web pub?
16:18:31 <romain> tzviya: I don't think so, there are requirements that many web sites don't meet
16:18:33 <laudrain> +1
16:18:42 <romain> Bill_Kasdorf: ok, so it's one direction not the other
16:19:00 <George> +1
16:19:01 <romain> tzviya: I think we can vote, are we ready to publish that as the next editor draft?
16:19:02 <ivan> propose: publish the latest ed as a TR document
16:19:04 <tzviya> +1
16:19:05 <wendyreid> +1
16:19:06 <garth> +1
16:19:06 <mateus> +1
16:19:07 <ivan> +1
16:19:08 <marisa> +1
16:19:09 <franco> +1
16:19:10 <Rachel> +1
16:19:10 <josh> +1
16:19:11 <mattg> +1
16:19:12 <CharlesL> +1
16:19:15 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:19:15 <laudrain> +1
16:19:21 <rkwright> +1
16:19:22 <BenSchroeter> +1
16:19:22 <romain> 0 (didn't take time to review, sorry)
16:19:28 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:19:30 <ivan> resolved: publish the latest ed as a TR document
16:19:58 <romain> ivan: the group has a possibility to react within 5 days!
16:20:00 <timCole> timCole has joined #pwg
16:20:06 <romain> tzviya: thx Matt and Ivan for the work!
16:20:12 <romain> topic: ToC algorithm
16:20:17 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/378
16:20:24 <romain> tzviya: issue 378
16:20:45 <romain> … the issue is "what goes into ToC?"
16:21:08 <romain> … the proposal is to leave things as is, unless we have evidence it needs to be adjusted
16:21:43 <mateus> q+
16:21:47 <tzviya> ack mateus
16:21:48 <mattg> q+
16:21:56 <romain> … mateus said they need extra types (chenistry, music) in the ToC
16:22:11 <romain> mateus: I can provide examples from NN
16:22:14 <ivan> q+
16:22:15 <tzviya> s/chenistry/chemistry
16:22:17 <tzviya> ack mattg
16:23:20 <romain> mattg: there are two issues, one is allowing markup within the ToC labels (#414), but #378 is more about the various _structures_ of ToC
16:23:32 <romain> … what kind of different structuring of the ToC should we try to account for
16:23:53 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:24:01 <romain> … maybe we should wait and see
16:24:23 <romain> ivan: my impression is that the possibility of putting advanced markup in label is different from #378
16:24:57 <romain> … the reason I raised it back then is that some structural things (e.g. section elements) are ignored by the algo, and I was wondering if other things should be ignored too
16:25:17 <romain> … my feeling is that the answer is no; but it doesn't mean we can't allow MathML
16:25:42 <romain> … it seems we can close #378 without much problems, regardless of what we decide for the markup of labels
16:25:53 <romain> tzviya: I agree with that
16:25:53 <mateus> +1, but I'll share examples either way
16:26:11 <romain> … mateus can provide examples for #414 then
16:26:33 <romain> mattg: right, we're waiting for evidence for more table of contents
16:26:43 <ivan> q+
16:26:54 <romain> … we can close it and raise specific issues, specific kind of ToC when we have evidence or examples
16:27:07 <romain> tzviya: the proposal is to leave the algo as is and clase #378
16:27:29 <mateus> q+
16:27:37 <romain> ivan: yes, I have the impression that the structure of the ToC, as currently described, should be fine as-is.
16:27:41 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:27:45 <ivan> q-
16:27:47 <tzviya> ack mateus
16:27:52 <romain> mateus: true
16:28:06 <Avneesh> +1
16:28:14 <romain> tzviya: ok, so overwhelming support for closing #378, and mateus will add comment to #414
16:28:19 <romain> +1
16:28:25 <CharlesL> +1
16:28:27 <wendyreid> +1
16:28:28 <laudrain> +1
16:28:32 <mateus> +1
16:28:32 <josh> +1
16:28:34 <ivan> +1
16:28:34 <ivan> resolved: ok, so overwhelming support for closing #378, and mateus will add comment to #414
16:29:16 <romain> topic: draft proposal for audiobooks
16:29:23 <wendyreid> https://raw.githack.com/wareid/audiobooks/draft/index.html
16:29:37 <romain> wendyreid: special thanks to Laurent for the link
16:29:53 <romain> … I proposed a first PR, Ivan and Laurent left a ton of feedback
16:29:56 <tzviya> https://w3c.github.io/audiobooks/ also works
16:30:08 <romain> … we're planning on merging it shortly, as it's not easy to comment right now
16:30:41 <romain> … the approach is one of balancing between WebPub and Audiobooks
16:30:49 <ivan> q+
16:30:55 <romain> … I wanted to make it readable for someone who didn't read WebPub
16:31:00 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:31:01 <romain> … happy to fix it wherever needed
16:31:27 <romain> ivan: can we pick one or two of the issues I listed, which require brainstorming?
16:31:35 <romain> wendyreid: yes!
16:32:10 <romain> ivan:  one question I had is: if I take an audio book, and want to differentiate it from other Web Pub, is it reasonable to say that the reading order contains audio files only?
16:32:23 <romain> … (and anything else can be in the list of resources)
16:32:36 <garth> q?
16:32:45 <romain> … is it reasonable to say? would it make it easier to produce? or is it unnecessary?
16:32:58 <romain> wendyreid: I think we discussed it, about supplemental content
16:33:21 <marisa> q+
16:33:28 <romain> … we came to the conclusion that for the initial version, we would make the reading order audio only, and non-audio resources would be in the resource list
16:33:29 <Avneesh> I remember the same. audio pfofile will have list of audio in reading order.
16:33:32 <George> q+
16:33:32 <ivan> q+
16:33:35 <tzviya> ack marisa
16:33:35 <garth> +1 to Wendy
16:34:16 <romain> marisa: I don't disagree, but looking at the examples, I wouldn't know where to render cover and content (rel values)
16:34:32 <romain> wendyreid: I think Laurent opend issue #405 about this
16:35:06 <garth> q?
16:35:07 <romain> marisa: historically it seems UA don't want to do anything, they want to be told what to do
16:35:31 <romain> tzviya: before we continue, I think we'll want to keep the audiobook issues in the main repo
16:35:43 <tzviya> ack George
16:35:54 <romain> wendyreid: right, do not log issues to the audiobook repo, use the main Web Pub repo
16:36:19 <romain> George: when we discussed this there were two proposed solutions, one is the rel value, one is the supplemental ToC
16:36:37 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:36:39 <romain> wendyreid: I did include it in the draft that if you have supplemental content, you must have a ToC
16:37:15 <romain> ivan: then this should be in the document? formally this is one area where audiobooks impose a restriction that WebPub doesn't have, so it should be documented
16:37:17 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:37:46 <romain> … in the general structure there is a possibility that I do not provide a reading order at all, in which case it falls back to the default where the entry page is the only content in reading order
16:38:04 <romain> … which is HTML and not audio, so we have to say that a reading order MUST be provided
16:38:07 <marisa> s/I wouldn't know where to render cover and content (rel values)/I wouldn't know what to do with resources without rel values
16:38:28 <tzviya> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:38:56 <romain> Bill_Kasdorf: there can be audiobooks of podcassts, with a transcipt for accessibility?
16:38:58 <romain> wendyreid: yes
16:39:15 <romain> ivan: so, duration is a new property, there was several questions there
16:39:40 <romain> … are there 2 places where 'duration' can be used? for the entire publication and individual audio resources?
16:39:43 <romain> wendyreid: yes
16:39:55 <romain> ivan: is the duration, for the whole publication, a required property?
16:40:26 <romain> wendyreid: I think it should be required as UA would find it very useful, but on the other hand it could be calculated
16:40:27 <tzviya> q+
16:40:31 <romain> … it's nice to know
16:40:48 <tzviya> ack tzviya
16:40:50 <Avneesh> q+
16:40:55 <garth> q?
16:40:57 <romain> tzviya: based on discussions we had (calculation can be incorrect), I think I would make it a required property
16:40:58 <laudrain> q+
16:41:00 <garth> q+
16:41:08 <wendyreid> ack Avneesh
16:41:08 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
16:41:27 <romain> Avneesh: yes, it is a burden to expect RS to calculate it; it is also an important piece of metadata
16:41:46 <romain> … so it should be mandatory for the publication, and can be optional for individual files
16:42:08 <romain> … another question was about media fragmenets, can you point to a precise position into an audio resource?
16:42:19 <romain> s/fragmenets/fragments/
16:42:28 <wendyreid> ack laudrain
16:42:30 <tzviya> ack laudrain
16:42:30 <romain> wendyreid: yes, you're right we should specify that
16:42:55 <romain> laudrain: for the duratiion, it's true that publishers will expose the total duration to the users
16:43:39 <Bill_Kasdorf> that sounds like an ONIX issue
16:43:41 <romain> … it's displayed on vendor's web sites; but we don't want to rely on metadata that is _inside_ the package
16:43:46 <tzviya> ack garth
16:43:52 <ivan> q+
16:43:52 <romain> … but I agree with Avneesh that it should be mandatory
16:44:11 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:44:15 <tzviya> q+ ivan
16:44:42 <garth> q?
16:44:50 <romain> garth: thinking back of EPUB where we have metadata about properties about individual resources: it can be useful, but the RS will have to process the resources and figure out what the real length is anyway, there's no guarantee the metadata is right
16:45:24 <josh> +1 to Tzviya
16:45:31 <romain> tzviya: historically we had a problem with EPUB about the ability to rely on the provided information, but that should not be a reason why it can't be in the specification
16:45:44 <romain> … not all distributors are using ONIX
16:45:56 <romain> … since the property exists in schema.org we can reuse it
16:46:10 <laurent_> q+
16:46:15 <romain> garth: the question is whether it should be required, you can have arguments both ways
16:46:33 <ivan> q- later
16:46:33 <ivan> q?
16:46:43 <George> a+
16:46:46 <romain> wendyreid: right. I think it should be required; of course it puts the onus on content creators
16:46:50 <tzviya> q+ George
16:46:51 <Avneesh> q+
16:47:02 <ivan> ack laurent_
16:47:09 <ivan> q- later
16:47:10 <romain> laurent_: the metadata must be taken as a descriptive metadata
16:47:32 <romain> … we should not make it required; like all descriptive metadata it can be optional
16:47:56 <romain> … if there's a discrepency with ONIX metadat and in-package metadata, it's not an issue if it's descriptive only
16:48:13 <romain> George: the ONIX record needs to find out from somewhere what the information is
16:48:35 <Karen> Karen has joined #pwg
16:48:35 <romain> … it seems like having metadata about the book in the book enables correct cataloging in all kinds of different places
16:49:07 <romain> … I would think the metadata would be the authoritative
16:49:23 <romain> Avneesh: I agree with George; we're producing audio books since 1996
16:49:53 <josh> q+
16:49:54 <garth> q?
16:49:57 <wendyreid> ack George
16:49:58 <romain> … if there are inacuracies it's because there are no proper standards, but if this becomes mandated, production tools will generate this metadata correctly
16:50:00 <wendyreid> ack Avneesh
16:50:03 <wendyreid> ack ivan
16:50:20 <romain> ivan: I think editorially we have an open issue (no consensus)
16:50:42 <romain> … you (wendy) as an editor makes one choice, and link to the issue
16:50:51 <ivan> q?
16:50:55 <ivan> q+
16:51:00 <wendyreid> ack josh
16:51:00 <ivan> ack josh
16:51:08 <romain> josh: as a system implementor, I love required things
16:51:25 <romain> … if something is optional, then my implementation will have to do it, to calculate it
16:51:36 <romain> … and if I do it, I'm always gonna use it
16:51:40 <garth> q?
16:51:42 <laudrain> +1 to Josh
16:51:51 <romain> … so as an implementor an optional info is useless
16:52:08 <romain> … that is critical info, so why would you not want it there?
16:52:22 <garth> q?
16:52:23 <romain> ivan: can we move on to a different question on duration?
16:52:25 <garth> ack ivan
16:52:28 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:52:32 <laudrain> q+
16:52:34 <romain> … I presume that you refer to schema.org duration?
16:52:37 <romain> wendyreid: yes
16:52:51 <romain> ivan: the schema.org duration is defined on the MediaObject type
16:53:02 <romain> … which also applies e..g. to video
16:53:31 <romain> … so maybe duration as a property should move to the generic Web Publication spec
16:53:38 <tzviya> ack laudrain
16:53:57 <romain> laudrain: I agree with Josh's earlier comment; the content creator knows the duration of the book
16:54:22 <romain> … it's not an issue to make it mandatory in the manifest, it's a better situation of UA developers
16:54:25 <garth> q?
16:54:33 <George> q+
16:54:55 <romain> George: the audio book (complete publication) is in audio, with supplemental material
16:55:05 <wendyreid> ack George
16:55:16 <romain> … with a Web publication with video clips, there can be video clips here and there, it's not a global duration
16:55:24 <romain> … the publication is not fundamentally time based
16:55:27 <ivan> q+
16:55:44 <wendyreid> ack ivan
16:55:45 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:55:48 <romain> … so we need to differentiate something completely time-based, and something with time-based content
16:55:53 <romain> ivan: true
16:56:17 <romain> … maybe the property itself can be defined in general, but generally diefined on individual resources
16:56:29 <romain> s/diefined/defined
16:56:51 <romain> … we separate between the usage of the property on top-level and individual media entities
16:56:57 <George> +1 to what Ivan is saying
16:57:13 <romain> … there are schema.org vocabs that we have to discuss, but we can leave it to later discussions
16:57:16 <romain> wendyreid: I agree
16:58:09 <romain> wendyreid/tzviya/wendy: this was a productive discussion!
16:58:25 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #pwg
16:58:34 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:58:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/01-pwg-minutes.html ivan
16:58:34 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:58:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:58:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:58:34 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, ivan, Rachel, rkwright, wendyreid, romain, franco, JunGamo, BenSchroeter, CharlesL, Bill_Kasdorf, marisa, George,
16:58:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
16:58:37 <Zakim> ... Avneesh, laudrain, Garth, josh, mateus, laurent