15:39:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:39:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/06/24-pwg-irc
15:39:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwg
15:40:26 <tzviya> Meeting: PWG Weekly Telco
15:40:33 <tzviya> Date: 2019-06-24
15:40:37 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya
15:40:54 <dauwhe> github-bot, help
15:40:54 <github-bot> dauwhe, The commands I understand are:
15:40:54 <github-bot>   help      - Send this message.
15:40:54 <github-bot>   intro     - Send a message describing what I do.
15:40:55 <github-bot>   status    - Send a message with current bot status.
15:40:55 <github-bot>   bye       - Leave the channel.  (You can /invite me back.)
15:40:55 <github-bot>   end topic - End the current topic without starting a new one.
15:40:56 <github-bot>   reboot - Make me leave the server and exit.  If properly configured, I will then update myself and return.
15:42:10 <tzviya> regrets+ Ivan, Wendy, Avneesh, Laurent, Luc, Gregorio, Romain, Nick, Tim
15:49:38 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:56:39 <tzviya> present+
15:58:03 <dkaplan3> present+
15:59:26 <dauwhe> present+
16:01:07 <dauwhe> present+ George
16:01:40 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
16:02:13 <franco> present+
16:02:53 <bigbluehat> present+
16:03:01 <George> George has joined #pwg
16:03:25 <George> present+
16:03:33 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:03:37 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
16:03:43 <josh> present+
16:03:50 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:03:53 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:04:16 <bigbluehat> scribe: bigbluehat
16:04:26 <bigbluehat> tzviya: lots of folks in Paris because of the EDRLab meeting
16:04:34 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-06-17-pwg
16:04:39 <bigbluehat> ...let's take a look at last week's meeting notes
16:04:41 <bigbluehat> ...any comments?
16:04:46 <bigbluehat> scribe+ dauwhe
16:04:55 <bigbluehat> ...k...minutes approved
16:04:58 <simon_collinson> simon_collinson has joined #pwg
16:05:08 <simon_collinson> present+
16:05:10 <bigbluehat> ...josh and franco are you both here?
16:05:13 <bigbluehat> franco: yep
16:05:13 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
16:05:15 <bigbluehat> josh: indeed
16:05:30 <bigbluehat> tzviya: then you can take us through the finalizing steps for the UCR document
16:05:34 <tzviya> topic: FInalizing UCR for Publication
16:05:43 <bigbluehat> josh: I nominate franco to go first
16:06:14 <tzviya> https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/
16:06:18 <bigbluehat> franco: so josh and I would like some feedback on a couple more issues
16:06:24 <bigbluehat> ...first one is issue #213
16:06:35 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues
16:06:45 <bigbluehat> ...josh suggests it seems to recommend that the document be using DRM
16:06:47 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
16:06:49 <bigbluehat> ...rather than possibly using it
16:07:00 <tzviya> github: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues
16:07:03 <bigbluehat> ...so, we suggest a change to mention the possibility
16:07:10 <bigbluehat> ...but not make it sound like a requirement
16:07:11 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:07:11 <franco> A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication.
16:07:12 <dauwhe> github: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/213
16:07:17 <bigbluehat> josh: I just agreed with the TAG reviewer
16:07:18 <duga> present+
16:07:19 <tzviya> github: https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/213
16:07:25 <bigbluehat> ...I think it is a little problematic
16:07:29 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:07:32 <JunGamo> present+
16:07:37 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:07:49 <bigbluehat> franco: I just pasted in the recommended rephrasing--reading it now
16:07:53 <tzviya> q?
16:07:58 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:08:03 <dauwhe> q+
16:08:03 <garth> present+ Garth
16:08:11 <bigbluehat> franco: "A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication."
16:08:11 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:08:24 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: do we need to make a statement around this at all?
16:08:31 <josh> q+
16:08:39 <tzviya> ack josh
16:08:42 <garth> s/write/rights/
16:08:53 <bigbluehat> josh: dauwhe are you suggesting we leave it as is?
16:08:57 <bigbluehat> ...despite the TAG feedback?
16:09:03 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: no, I'm more thinking about dropping the use case
16:09:14 <bigbluehat> josh: ah. quite right. that's been my go to rememdy
16:09:48 <bigbluehat> ...it had been my position to take it out (in general)
16:09:58 <bigbluehat> ...and we took a lot out, so I've been concerned we'd taken too much out
16:10:04 <bigbluehat> ...so I wanted to check with the group on this one
16:10:12 <bigbluehat> tzviya: this should probably point to 16 not 17
16:10:36 <bigbluehat> ...I think the reason this is in here is not the "classic"/traditional content protection use case
16:10:46 <bigbluehat> ...but rather than library use case for content protection
16:10:55 <franco> q+
16:11:01 <bigbluehat> ...so I'm a little hesitant to pull it completely
16:11:12 <tzviya> ack franco
16:11:21 <bigbluehat> ...the other case is making sure folks with disability can access it--despite the DRM
16:11:36 <bigbluehat> franco: I'm in agreement that it should remain and be rephrased
16:11:53 <bigbluehat> ...like the WP may be subject to this, rather than it containing those protections in itself
16:11:58 <bigbluehat> tzviya: "A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication."
16:11:58 <duga> q+
16:12:05 <tzviya> ack duga
16:12:15 <dauwhe> q+
16:12:21 <bigbluehat> duga: I prefer the original text
16:12:26 <bigbluehat> ...the revision is not quite right
16:12:33 <bigbluehat> ...a WP must not do something
16:12:43 <bigbluehat> ...if I want to make a WP that cannot be DRM'd, I should be allowed to do that
16:12:56 <bigbluehat> ...I think it's more that WP's not prevent using DRM
16:13:19 <bigbluehat> ...this rephrasing makes it sound like WP's should always be compatible with DRM
16:13:25 <bigbluehat> ...and I don't think we should make that a requirement
16:13:36 <josh> q+
16:13:39 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:13:48 <bigbluehat> tzviya: the goal seems to be that it should be compatible with DRM, but not require it
16:13:54 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: I sort of agree with duga
16:14:11 <bigbluehat> ...we keep saying DRM, but are we talking about encrypting content and stuff
16:14:21 <bigbluehat> ...or are we saying something more like logging into a bank account?
16:14:26 <bigbluehat> ...for which you need a login to use at all
16:14:39 <bigbluehat> ...like with the NY Times, I have to be a subscriber to access the content
16:14:50 <bigbluehat> ...that seems pretty implicit to the design of the Web
16:15:12 <tzviya> ack josh
16:15:13 <bigbluehat> ...we are not creating use cases that say every publication must be accessible to anyone with that URL
16:15:22 <bigbluehat> ...so perhaps there's a way to express this more compatibly with the rest of the Web
16:15:47 <bigbluehat> josh: I didn't choose the "write", but I think it's correct
16:16:00 <bigbluehat> ...these aren't "right" as in access permissions--these are protecting from writing
16:16:12 <bigbluehat> ...I hadn't thought of the earlier mention of preventing DRM
16:16:14 <duga> q+
16:16:25 <bigbluehat> ...not sure why someone would do that
16:16:28 <tzviya> current wording is "A Web Publication should be able to express the access control and write protections of the publication."
16:16:28 <Bill_Kasdorf> I think we should explicitly be agnostic on the issue.
16:16:37 <bigbluehat> ..in light of that, I'm back to wondering why say anything about it
16:16:58 <bigbluehat> tzviya: franco and josh could you remind us about the TAG comment on this one?
16:17:01 <dauwhe> q+
16:17:04 <bigbluehat> ...and why we're discussing it
16:17:23 <franco> UC 121: Alice acquires a Packaged Web Publication through a subscription service and downloads it. When, later on, she decides to unsubscribe from the service, this Web Publication becomes unavailable to her.
16:17:33 <bigbluehat> franco: the comment said, this seems problematic for this particular use case
16:17:43 <duga> q-
16:17:55 <bigbluehat> tzviya: this probably just needs explanation
16:17:57 <tzviya> ack duga
16:18:00 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:18:15 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: the other interesting this is that as phrased right now it seems like a question of metadata
16:18:23 <bigbluehat> ...are we proposing that we need an access control vocabulary
16:18:26 <franco> q+
16:18:26 <josh> q+
16:18:26 <duga> q+
16:18:39 <bigbluehat> ...it sort of comes down to the question of who are we talking about here
16:18:43 <bigbluehat> ...if I'm putting a journal online
16:18:51 <bigbluehat> ...I can setup whatever registration access control that I want
16:19:08 <bigbluehat> ...again we seem to have an implicit assumption that we're talking about a file format or something
16:19:17 <tzviya> ack franco
16:19:18 <bigbluehat> ...that could include a permissions expression or access control vocabular
16:19:23 <bigbluehat> ...all of that strikes me as odd
16:19:28 <bigbluehat> s/vocabular/vocabulary
16:19:52 <bigbluehat> franco: I think what dauwhe is describing here, is that there would be something in the WP that would express the right/write protection
16:19:57 <bigbluehat> ...I'm not versed in DRM at all
16:20:08 <bigbluehat> ...but I still think this just needs rephrasing
16:20:18 <bigbluehat> ...since we have subscription and library scenarios, I'd think we should keep it
16:20:48 <bigbluehat> ...the current way it's being stated seems to dictate something we're not wanting to dictate
16:21:01 <tzviya> ack josh
16:21:09 <bigbluehat> ...the rephrasing suggestion currently may not work, but I can propose something else
16:21:38 <bigbluehat> josh: agreed. In my comment on the issue, I was noting that it seemed like the WP was somehow including this metadata
16:21:54 <bigbluehat> ...we don't want to suggest that the WP includes a method of access control or DRM
16:21:56 <tzviya> ack duga
16:22:02 <bigbluehat> duga: so, I think I agree with all of that
16:22:14 <bigbluehat> ...if we're rewriting that, just make it clear that the access control is something external to a WP
16:22:22 <bigbluehat> ...and that the WP shouldn't break such a mechanism
16:22:38 <bigbluehat> tzviya: so I think we should change UCR 16 to allowing for this
16:22:44 <bigbluehat> ...it should just be a minor tweak
16:22:58 <bigbluehat> ...franco and josh please work on this one, and send it around--unless you have wording right now
16:22:59 <garth> q+
16:23:02 <bigbluehat> josh: I think it's fine to go offline
16:23:13 <bigbluehat> ...I'd only ask if we resolve this online, and finalize it next week
16:23:18 <bigbluehat> ...and then agree to it on github
16:23:18 <tzviya> ack garth
16:23:20 <bigbluehat> tzviya: exactly
16:23:42 <bigbluehat> garth: I just wanted to comment, whatever the agreed language, we should enable it more than focusing on disabling
16:24:00 <George> I like it too.
16:24:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:24:17 <bigbluehat> tzviya: it needs to function, not just not function
16:24:26 <josh> A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication.
16:24:42 <garth> s/we should enable it more than focusing on disabling/we should focus more on ‘not disable’ rather than ‘should enable’/
16:24:43 <bigbluehat> ...duga feel free to disagree with that. :)
16:24:55 <bigbluehat> ...unless duga you've come around
16:25:29 <bigbluehat> duga: I don't know. It seems like we're forcing all these to have access control applied to them
16:25:36 <bigbluehat> ...there may be places where you want the opposite
16:25:47 <bigbluehat> ...and I'm concerned about making "must not prevent" being a use case
16:25:55 <bigbluehat> tzviya: agreed. I think we've come full circle
16:26:03 <bigbluehat> ...and I'm leaning on josh and franco to tweak the wording
16:26:08 <bigbluehat> ...the other issues is #215
16:26:10 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/215
16:26:29 <bigbluehat> josh: I hope everyone's reading these, but this one has to do with CSS counters
16:26:37 <bigbluehat> ...and in this case, across resources
16:26:48 <bigbluehat> ...if I had a 15 chapter legal document that had paragraph numbering
16:27:00 <bigbluehat> ...a lot of times, you'd use a CSS counter to number all of those
16:27:07 <bigbluehat> ...but that doesn't work across documents
16:27:22 <bigbluehat> ...there was a requirement that WP's somehow support something that I don't know how to do in CSS
16:27:24 <dauwhe> q+
16:27:35 <bigbluehat> ...you can hard code the numbering of course
16:27:46 <bigbluehat> ...I put a comment in there, and got some feedback
16:27:55 <bigbluehat> ...one of them said, I thought this was about page numbering
16:28:04 <bigbluehat> ...and I don't think it is
16:28:13 <bigbluehat> ...so my first question, is this about CSS numbering across documents?
16:28:26 <bigbluehat> ...and having CSS seed the starting number from a previous document
16:28:28 <Bill_Kasdorf> typically publishers would want to control the numbering via hard coding anyway--especially legal
16:28:31 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
16:28:39 <bigbluehat> ...and if so, how do deal that in a world that doesn't work that way
16:28:46 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: the use case is a little weird
16:29:03 <garth> q+
16:29:04 <bigbluehat> ...the user is requesting a specific technology to achieve a larger goal
16:29:12 <bigbluehat> ...we sort of assume having multiple HTML documents is the ultimate goal
16:29:21 <bigbluehat> ...and that CSS is the only way to achieve that goal
16:29:26 <bigbluehat> ...which I think sets us up for failure
16:29:35 <bigbluehat> ...because I think this will always be impossible in CSS
16:29:37 <Bill_Kasdorf> not always, just "typically"
16:29:45 <bigbluehat> ...going up to the requirement...I don't see this as a requirement
16:29:56 <bigbluehat> ...is this something a web content creator thinks about
16:30:06 <bigbluehat> ...is there concern about documents being layered on top of each other?
16:30:13 <duga> +1K
16:30:21 <bigbluehat> ...I think this on is not very well expressed
16:30:25 <franco> +1
16:30:27 <bigbluehat> ...I'd be happy to take this one out
16:30:28 <garth> +1
16:30:31 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:30:31 <bigbluehat> ...and it's associated use cases
16:30:31 <garth> q?
16:30:35 <George> +1 to what Dave said.
16:30:44 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I do think we were originally talking about page numbering
16:30:50 <bigbluehat> ...it was a very long time ago
16:31:12 <bigbluehat> ...in some sort of idealized world, perhaps this included figure numbering
16:31:16 <josh> q+
16:31:20 <bigbluehat> ...and this needs to be customizable
16:31:23 <George> q+
16:31:27 <bigbluehat> ...you can't create a rule about these things
16:31:31 <bigbluehat> ...because it's going to vary
16:31:41 <bigbluehat> ...things like section numbering will vary from publication to publication
16:32:03 <tzviya> ack garth
16:32:05 <bigbluehat> ...like josh is explaining, unless you use variables and share them across resources...
16:32:08 <bigbluehat> ...this one needs to come out
16:32:23 <bigbluehat> garth: my recollection was that this was originally about OL's across documents
16:32:28 <tzviya> ack josh
16:32:32 <bigbluehat> ...but I also agree that we shouldn't legislate the impossible
16:32:46 <bigbluehat> josh: I'm reading it right now, and it does talk about section numbering
16:33:00 <bigbluehat> ...maybe it was about page numbering initially
16:33:05 <bigbluehat> ...but it now includes section numbering
16:33:06 <tzviya> ack George
16:33:31 <bigbluehat> George: if anyone's going to reference paragraph numbers in a legal document, you don't want that auto generated anyway
16:33:34 <bigbluehat> +1
16:33:34 <duga> +1
16:33:34 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:33:34 <franco> +1
16:33:35 <tzviya> +1
16:33:36 <josh> +100
16:33:36 <garth> +1
16:33:36 <geoffjukes> +1
16:33:39 <dkaplan3> +1
16:33:39 <dauwhe> Kill! Kill! Kill!
16:33:43 <George> +1
16:34:04 <bigbluehat> tzviya: very good. then josh and franco please remove that section
16:34:09 <bigbluehat> ...and tweak requirement 16
16:34:13 <bigbluehat> ...about access control
16:34:19 <bigbluehat> ...and you'll send that around to the group for review
16:34:27 <bigbluehat> ...and then hopefully declare this publishable
16:34:44 <bigbluehat> josh: yeah. we've got a few more things to clean up, but yeah, we should be able to meet the end of June deadline
16:34:55 <bigbluehat> tzviya: then you can work with ivan on the details of publishing this document
16:35:07 <bigbluehat> ...I'm sure he's on email during the summit
16:35:13 <bigbluehat> ...so. that's it for our agenda
16:35:17 <bigbluehat> ...anything else?
16:35:26 <bigbluehat> ...ok. class dismissed!
16:35:34 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has left #pwg
16:35:44 <tzviya> rrsagent, make logs public
16:36:04 <tzviya> rrsagent make minutes
16:36:47 <tzviya> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/06/24-pwg-minutes.html tzviya
17:09:45 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #pwg
17:11:19 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #pwg
17:29:45 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #pwg
18:28:44 <Rachel> Rachel has joined #pwg
18:29:26 <dauwhe_> dauwhe_ has joined #pwg
19:01:25 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwg
20:31:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
20:31:55 <tzviya> rrsagent, bye
20:31:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items