15:36:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:36:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/06/03-pwg-irc
15:36:24 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:36:24 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:36:24 <ivan> Chair: tzviya
15:36:24 <ivan> Date: 2019-06-03
15:36:24 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019May/0020.html
15:36:24 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-06-03: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019May/0020.html
15:36:25 <ivan> Regrets+ avneesh, tcole, geoff
15:46:57 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:57:00 <tzviya> present+
15:57:06 <tzviya> regrets+ dave
15:57:23 <nickruffilo> nickruffilo has joined #pwg
15:57:46 <ivan> present+
15:57:56 <ivan> present+ nickruffilo
15:58:08 <nickruffilo> scribe+ nickruffilo
15:58:14 <tzviya> scribe: nickruffilo
15:58:59 <wendyreid> present+
16:00:07 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
16:00:18 <laurent_> laurent_ has joined #pwg
16:00:32 <laurent_> present+
16:00:58 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
16:01:02 <simon_collinson> simon_collinson has joined #pwg
16:01:05 <dkaplan3> present+
16:01:07 <simon_collinson> present+
16:01:16 <JunGamo> present+
16:01:42 <laurent_> I'm there
16:01:42 <CharlesL> present+
16:02:03 <NickRuffilo> scribe+ NickRuffilo
16:02:03 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-05-20-pwg
16:02:04 <Teenya> Teenya has joined #pwg
16:02:11 <Teenya> present+
16:02:16 <Nellie> Nellie has joined #pwg
16:02:20 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Any comments on the minutes?  ...  Minutes approved
16:02:22 <ivan> resolved: last minutes approved
16:02:26 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:02:35 <ivan> Topic: open action items
16:02:36 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/publ-wg/labels/action
16:02:54 <NickRuffilo> ... Next agenda item is to go through the list of open action items.  Ivan put together a good list.  We don't need to solve them, just a quick comment on the people assigned
16:02:56 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
16:03:04 <Nellie> present+
16:03:19 <NickRuffilo> ... #48 - Benjamin - the publication address ending in / - comments?  (Benjamin is not here)
16:03:41 <NickRuffilo> ... #47 Wendy - you added a comment about audio object.  You have this in progress.  Anything to add?
16:04:07 <NickRuffilo> ...  #46 - Franco - working on a GAP analysis.  (franco is not here today)
16:04:14 <mgarrish> present+
16:04:37 <NickRuffilo> ... #45 = Ivan - set up discussion on the archival committee.
16:04:54 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I will close this because we had the meeting 2 hours ago.  They will probably set up a CG at some point.
16:05:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:05:04 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Does this need to be standalone or will you launch as well?
16:05:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:05:20 <mateus> mateus has joined #pwg
16:05:21 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Standalone as there might be issues that are no publication-only but I will continue and follow up.
16:05:27 <mateus> present+
16:05:32 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:05:37 <laudrain> present+
16:05:46 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Part of the point of the CG was to launch from within the group, so I'd say it's still a good candidate, but we can discuss separately
16:05:49 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
16:05:53 <bigbluehat> present+
16:06:11 <NickRuffilo> ... #44 - Talking to Ping about walking through the questionnaire.  Ralph suggested someone in the group walk through and I need to talk to someone
16:06:26 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
16:06:27 <franco> present+
16:06:27 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
16:06:31 <NickRuffilo> ... #43 - is Marissa here?  It's on the agenda for next week, so we'll have an update then
16:06:33 <gpellegrino> present+
16:06:40 <marisa> present+
16:06:49 <NickRuffilo> ... #42 - Ivan and Garth - where are you on the bespoke previews
16:06:52 <ivan> present+ garth
16:07:06 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I have given it thought...  I have not created the pull request but it's on my todo list.
16:07:15 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Please add a comment on #42 for that.
16:07:22 <rkwright> present+
16:07:29 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:07:46 <NickRuffilo> ... #41 - editing the explainer for web-app manifest.  I haven't done that yet but hopefully this week.
16:07:56 <NickRuffilo> ... #37 - wendy talked to tess about the audio explainer issues
16:08:06 <NickRuffilo> Wendy: I'm still waiting on Tess's reply to my email.
16:08:09 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:08:30 <duga> present+
16:08:37 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: #35 - write a proposal to web publication.  Jeremey is not here...
16:08:53 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I had a discussion with him an hour ago.  He's in progress with this.
16:09:04 <NickRuffilo> ]Tzviya: #34 - find a home for the sync narration spec
16:09:29 <NickRuffilo> Wendy: We're going to have the sync media group publish their findings as a note, then have the working group publish that as a note.
16:10:01 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: #33 - something for Dave (who is not here) - looks like there's some work to be done...  We'll leave to next week.
16:10:12 <NickRuffilo> ... Please get your work done you awesome people
16:10:24 <NickRuffilo> ... This might be good to put on the agenda every other week to review
16:10:25 <ivan> Topic: Packaging spec issues
16:10:38 <NickRuffilo> ... Laurent - we have the list of packaging specs.  There were a list of issues in the agenda, hopefully people have reviewed them
16:10:44 <laurent_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/pwpub/master/spec/ocf-lite.html
16:10:57 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/36
16:11:05 <ivan> Subtopic: ua conformance
16:11:12 <George> George has joined #pwg
16:11:32 <George> present+ George
16:11:46 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: Link to the draft spec in minutes.  First item #36 - followup on discussion about conformance requirements for user agents.  What should we include inside the packaging specification.  What I did was to specify that - simply - a user agent is conformant if it's capable of processing a conformant package...
16:12:10 <NickRuffilo> ... and if it fulfills the criteria specification.  And then it links to the W3C specification.
16:12:41 <NickRuffilo> ... That way we could rely just on the WP specification.  We added a line to ensure that the User Agents conform to the LPF spec.
16:12:49 <laurent_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/pwpub/master/spec/ocf-lite.html#sec-ua-conformance
16:13:04 <NickRuffilo> ... This is something you find in section 3.  (link in chat) If you agree, we can move forward and close this issue
16:13:08 <ivan> +1
16:13:21 <laudrain> +1
16:13:22 <NickRuffilo> +1
16:13:27 <Nellie> +1
16:13:29 <wendyreid> +1
16:13:34 <bigbluehat> q+
16:13:38 <rkwright> +1
16:13:42 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:13:55 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: I was just looking where processing is defined.
16:14:17 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:14:23 <NickRuffilo> ... Is it just unzipping - or is it other things
16:14:40 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: 'it is capable of processing a conformant package'   what do you mean by processing
16:15:00 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: there is no strict definition - just following the rules of section 2 of the same spec.
16:15:12 <NickRuffilo> ... But I don't see a big semantic difference between handling and processing
16:16:05 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: Is an LPF compliant processor going to turn this stuff into something else, and what is that?
16:16:54 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: we decided not to define an LPF processor that turns the package into something else.  Most would turn it into a WP, but we won't exclusively add it.   If we only make a reference to the user agent conformance, there would be no mention of the file name (index.html or publication.json)
16:17:15 <tzviya> q+
16:17:18 <NickRuffilo> ... we can come back to that later - by making a reference to the conformance of WP, we will have to go through - step by step retrieval of the manifest...
16:17:27 <tzviya> ack tz
16:17:46 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: I hear Benjamin's concern, but I'm not sure what we can put in there to address it.
16:18:24 <laudrain> q+
16:18:33 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin - Zip has a clear intention, but is this meant to be like zip, where it's just a transfer format, and you explode it, then process it... but if it's going to a mobile app, there are expectations.  I realize the scope here is mixed because it's tied to web publications.
16:18:44 <tzviya> ack laudrain
16:18:53 <NickRuffilo> ... I'm just - since these are conformance requirements, these are not a testable phrase.
16:19:12 <NickRuffilo> Luc: This document defines a file format and processing model.  I suppose we should have something to explain the processing model?
16:19:28 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: the previous decision was to rely on the processing model.
16:19:32 <ivan> q+
16:19:43 <NickRuffilo> Luc: so maybe we add a line pointing to the web publication spec?  It will help the concern perhaps?
16:20:09 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:20:13 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: We're then defining two different processing models in one document.  In 2.1 - a web publication lightweight package - we're already referencing the zip spec.
16:20:48 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: There is an LPF processing model - all it is is the zip processing format that is defined elsewhere.  The result is processed as defined.  In a sense, this does not define it's OWN processing model separate, just the combination
16:21:34 <NickRuffilo> ...: We might have to be a little more clear about the two different processing models, but that is the intention
16:22:27 <NickRuffilo> ... Maybe the user agent conformance is the first bullet item - we can make it more clear that the user agent must follow whatever is described in the zip - must unpack the content, and the content must follow web package conformance.
16:22:42 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: this is only one type of processing - unzip, explode, use after that, but there might be other types of processes.
16:22:44 <bigbluehat> q+
16:23:25 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I think what we have to be careful is that we define a conceptual processing engine, but can it be implemented.  Conceptually speaking - per spec, the result should be a web publication
16:23:30 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:23:34 <NickRuffilo> ... if someone does something different inside, that's not for us to decide
16:23:46 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: I would say that reading or exploiting the zip is possible.
16:24:22 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: I was going to suggest that we use the same phrasing that the zip spec uses when it refers to accessing the contents of files.  Laurent is right - unzipping is a specific step, but there are other ways to access files.
16:24:24 <tzviya> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/pwpub/master/spec/ocf-lite.html#sec-zip already exists in the document
16:25:04 <NickRuffilo> ... but we have to make sure you can go from that knowledge to whatever is in the publication.  The discovery methods seem different - so some sort of processing description determining the difference between the zip and the web publication - that would be really helpful
16:25:17 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: Benjamin, do you think we should write the processing model in this document?
16:25:41 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: in so much as it differs.  In the case where there is a missing primary entry page - that would be different from standard zip
16:26:13 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: there are also differences in the discovery of the manifest.  In the web publication document - we use the word 'fetch' which is an HTTP word, but in zip you don't do that, it's a different concept, so there is something to discuss there.
16:26:44 <Rachel> present+
16:26:50 <NickRuffilo> ... the action item i propose is to state that we agree on adding wording that will be modified from the original.  Some wording that links to the web publication specification
16:27:16 <NickRuffilo> ... we will see in another issue the exact issues we have with the web publication processing model and try to solve this there.  I propose we table this issue and see the next issue
16:27:19 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/46
16:27:37 <ivan> Suptopic: better define ua conformance
16:27:49 <NickRuffilo> ... issue #46 - I propose we close it to clean the table.  I propose to keep 36 open and close 46...
16:27:53 <ivan> github-bot, bye
16:27:53 <github-bot> github-bot has left #pwg
16:28:00 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: so the idea is the previous issue will solve this?
16:28:02 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: Yes
16:28:34 <ivan> Suptopic: metadata specific to PWP
16:28:41 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/10
16:29:07 <NickRuffilo> ... the next is about descriptive metadata.  We have 3 specifications...  Issue #10 - what metadata is specific to PWP - we saw that there is no descriptive metadata related to a package, but there is a canonical ID and web publication address.
16:29:38 <tzviya> q?
16:29:40 <ivan> +1
16:29:40 <NickRuffilo> ... both are discussed in a different issue.  I propose we close this and note that there is no descriptive metadata related to the package - but keep open #47
16:29:42 <tzviya> +1
16:29:44 <laudrain> +1
16:29:47 <bigbluehat> q+
16:29:47 <NickRuffilo> .. do you agree and can we close
16:29:55 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:30:09 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: The manifest includes a reference to the canonical ID - are you saying that sufficient?
16:30:15 <laudrain> laudrain has left #pwg
16:30:31 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:30:37 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: we must treat descriptive metadata and canonical ID separate.  We're discussing specifically descriptive metadata.  This issue is exclusively about descriptive metadata.
16:30:38 <NickRuffilo> +1
16:30:40 <wendyreid> +1
16:30:51 <ivan> Suptopic: Packaged publications vs canonical id and WP address
16:31:02 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/47
16:32:02 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: #47 - packaged publications vs canonical ID: this is more complex.  A WP can have an address, because we know where it's located.  By definition the canonical ID is the preferred WP address (a URL).  If an LPF file is born inside the publishers house, before it becomes a WP, it has no address
16:32:30 <ivan> q+
16:32:42 <NickRuffilo> ... so the solution is to have no canonical ID.  It's possible in the spec to have no canonical ID.  It can have a DOI, or an ISBN - so we had an issue with canonical ID.
16:32:51 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:32:55 <NickRuffilo> ... We have a different issue with WP URL...
16:33:30 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: The current text does say that the unique identifier - but I don't know if bill is here, but what we are really talking about here is a unique identifier for the publication, which is preferred to be a URL.
16:34:10 <NickRuffilo> ... If the unique identifier is different, that should be perfectly accepted and the text in the web publication should be ammended.  In your case the DOI or URN should be OK.  It is used to identify something.
16:34:48 <NickRuffilo> ... Yes, the DOI can be tacked to the URL but when you look at the DOI, it's an identifier.  I think we might go the other way from the web packaging work - it's OK as is (we might want an editorial note that it's not always a URL)
16:34:51 <laudrain> q+
16:34:59 <tzviya> ack laudrain
16:35:02 <NickRuffilo> ... and then make the text on a canonical ID a little bit lighter.
16:35:11 <NickRuffilo> Luc: Can this identifier be an ISBN?
16:35:23 <laurent_> https://www.w3.org/TR/wpub/#example-49-example-for-setting-both-the-isbn-and-the-address-of-the-same-document
16:35:28 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: If you look at the example in #49 - you'll have your answer.
16:36:28 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Wait - we may have a problem.  The ID - being a jsonLD term, and the value must be a URI.  Benjamin is that correct?
16:36:41 <NickRuffilo> ... it's a question.  In JSONLD - the ID must be a URI?
16:36:51 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: Yes, IRI...
16:37:04 <NickRuffilo> ... If you were to use an ISBN, it could be ISBN:[number]
16:37:19 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: so it's solvable.  For the WP address?
16:37:28 <NickRuffilo> ... they are related because they are sometimes the same.
16:37:41 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: What should we do with #47?
16:38:06 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: should we add a note in the spec that any URI can be used as a canonical ID?
16:38:11 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: I think we should include some examples.
16:38:25 <NickRuffilo> ... if I understood what Benjamin said, the examples we had were not quite right?
16:38:37 <bigbluehat> q+
16:38:45 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: that's a schema.org issue.  They have a separate term for ISBN.  That's a problem in schema.org
16:38:50 <dkaplan3> +1 for including examples that are non-url URNs
16:38:52 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:39:34 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: The examples aren't wrong.  We show and example of schema.org ISBN - but we don't state that there is any use for that.  If we move it into use it as the ID of the document.
16:39:46 <NickRuffilo> ... It just changes - not evertyhing damaging
16:40:08 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about anchoring annotations, anchors, etc.
16:40:11 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I was not concerned, just wanted to go back to what Benjamin said for the value of ID.  Not sure it's a problem, but it was a good example
16:40:20 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: there is a need to make a small review of that section
16:40:37 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Do we have a resolution for this point?
16:40:45 <garth> q+
16:40:55 <mgarrish> q+
16:41:07 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: There is no need to resolve anything.  The issue #47 is also about the WP address.  the Wp address is another issue because the property is a URL yet the package has no URI
16:41:15 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Isn't it issue #45?
16:41:51 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: We should open a new issue for the publication address
16:42:02 <laudrain> q?
16:42:03 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: and the canonical issue should be closed - we put some examples in the document and update the main document
16:42:06 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:42:06 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about anchoring annotations, anchors, etc.
16:42:59 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: This isn't as massive as it sounds but it's going to come down to the origin one.  if we have a canonical ID - whether or not reference into the publication - scrolling, etc should use the canonical ID.  It doesn't have to be dereferencable - so it can be any identifier.
16:43:41 <NickRuffilo> ... so we're going to have to make some determinations about package referencing.  'Is that going to be the thing' or is the web publication address the thing we point to.  It's no longer a packaged web publication, then it would be a packaged publication
16:44:23 <tzviya> q?
16:44:24 <NickRuffilo> ... because if it's offline, we're just pulling it out of the box.  If they are more epub-y, then they are already off the web.  The identifiers have a whole set of new issues, and may not have a URL...  it's an identity crisis
16:44:30 <mgarrish> q-
16:44:33 <tzviya> ack ga
16:44:38 <garth> https://www.w3.org/TR/wpub/#canonical-identifier
16:45:15 <ivan> q+
16:45:16 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I didn't quite understand if we made a decision or moved to another issue, but are we also saying - as it's relevant to audiobooks - that the canonical ID could be an ISBN or DOI...  Did we get to anything?
16:45:23 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:45:45 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: My understanding on the canonical IDs is it can be missing or be any type of valid URI - ISBN or DOI or whatever else
16:45:49 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Is that a change?
16:46:05 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: it's a slight change from the text - because the text requires dereferencable.
16:46:11 <NickRuffilo> Garth: It also requires the term ID
16:46:44 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: It uses the term ID.  We have a schzyophrenic issue with ID.  We have explicit terms for many of them, but it's not exhuastive.  They don't have a term for DOI but they do for ISBN...
16:47:06 <NickRuffilo> ... people can use the ISBN because it's schema.org - but ideally they should use the ID in a valid URI form so it's valid for JSONLD
16:47:17 <bigbluehat> q+
16:47:20 <NickRuffilo> Garth: We explicitly say it's expressed using the ID property
16:47:27 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: if we're not clear on it, it's confusing in the document
16:47:28 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:48:19 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: If we - whatever we put in the ID field as the canonical - should/must (probably must) would become the identifier of the publication.  Ideally on the hard drive or the server...  We made it a URL but accomodated for DOIs - so you could use a DOI so it's more permanant than just a URL...
16:48:55 <ivan> q+
16:49:14 <NickRuffilo> ... we were trying to have a canonical ID.  When it was just web publications, we dereferenced the ID.  That ID doesn't have to be dereferencable and there might not be a URL in it at all.  But we need to think about the systems and what they do with the ID.  In JSONLD, it becomes the identifier of the thing.
16:49:30 <NickRuffilo> ... so if you release version 2 of this, you give it a different ID - or it has a different name entirely.
16:49:42 <NickRuffilo> ... so there's a whole host of identification issues that this brings back up
16:49:46 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:50:31 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I think we have discussed this a long time ago - the difference between an ID and a URL.  This is not a packaging issue.  You should be able to use a URN as an identifier - even if it's on the web.  You have the address, which is different from the ID.  What we have right now - regardless of packaging - is a bit too restrictive
16:50:39 <NickRuffilo> ... and that's why we have 2 different things, the URL and the ID.
16:51:11 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: I think what we do need in the document is clearer language.  It's confused enough of us.  Not sure how to propose that.  Garth, it sounded like you had some suggestions.
16:51:32 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I had more questions than suggestions.  I found that what was in there wasn't matching this discussion.  Matt can probably work magic on it though.
16:51:54 <NickRuffilo> Tzviya: Well, if that's how we're leaving it...
16:52:31 <NickRuffilo> Matt: I can give it a try but I'm a bit confused - does it have to dereference, should it dereference?
16:52:38 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: we'll come up with something
16:52:52 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: #47 shoudl be closed then?
16:52:59 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: we can put an example there, but nothing really heavy
16:53:05 <ivan> +1
16:53:14 <NickRuffilo> +1
16:53:16 <bigbluehat> q+
16:53:17 <laudrain> +1
16:53:46 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: it should stay open because it's related to packages - and it's a packaging driven requirement
16:55:44 <NickRuffilo> Laurent: in this case - i want to move to #49 - the real issue - most packages created by publishers will have no address or URL until they are exposed on the web
16:56:01 <ivan> Suptopic: Packages vs WP Address
16:56:08 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/49
16:56:27 <ivan> q+
16:56:38 <NickRuffilo> .. .the web specificaiton requires a URL inside the manifest.  I would propose that this address must be index.html - a relative URL which is the name of the primary entry page - the URL value.  Even if the primary entry page isn't in the package.  the URL will be updated by the processor when it has a proper URL (when it becomes a web publication)
16:56:50 <NickRuffilo> ... this is the only way I see being able to relax the web specification
16:56:54 <laurent_> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/49
16:57:01 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
16:57:17 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:57:40 <bigbluehat> q+
16:57:50 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I almost agree, but we have an open action - something to discuss - is use the URL / as a required address.  I think he has an action on coming up with a proposal for that
16:58:12 <NickRuffilo> ... if that approach flies, that would be a resolution to what you asked.  Wouldn't need index.html - even if it's localhost, using that works with anything
16:58:24 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:59:15 <ivan> Topic: WPUB changes
17:00:24 <ivan> scribe+
17:00:43 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/06/03-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:00:55 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
17:01:13 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/06/03-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:01:13 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:01:13 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:01:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:01:13 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, ivan, nickruffilo, wendyreid, laurent_, dkaplan, simon_collinson, JunGamo, CharlesL, Teenya, Nellie, mgarrish,
17:01:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg