<dauwhe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CTwQIhmsyXh0tpS6RLmLLeGDkO5JKHV1FdaXoh3CdXI/edit#

<jeff> scribenick: jeff

Rachel: New participants

New Participants

Rachel: Wayne?

Wayne: ... Alex?

Alex: I'm Alex Glover from PRH
... with Naomi Kennedy
... work with Liisa

<WayneDick> I lost my audio

CG Charter

Rachel: Dave diligently worked on proposed changes
... draft has been sent
... Dave?

Dave: A charter is W3C's way of describing what a group is for
... goals, method of doing work
... successfully published EPUB 3.2
... amazing work on EPUBcheck fundraising
... proud

<garth> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CTwQIhmsyXh0tpS6RLmLLeGDkO5JKHV1FdaXoh3CdXI/edit#

Dave: time to reflect
... what next
... future of EPUB
... other roles?
... charter frames and organizes discussion
... in parallel PBG is doing an EPUB survey
... should be softlaunched end of month
... also in parallel is discussion about EPUB moving to REC track
... three discussions interrelated
... today's focus is direction of EPUB and what this group wants to do

Rachel: Charter starts with Mission

[Rachel reads mission]

scribe: there was some commentary
... changes from previous mission

<Rachel> scribe+

<dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe

scribe+

jeff: I focus on the word "develop" sounds like it's the main path for developing new features
... I want to contrast that with the previous charter that said work on future major revisions is out of scope
... I'm not sure what our group here today, how far we want to take the development
... it troubles me that the statement on major revisions not being done in the CG was dropped

p+

scribe: the cg structure provides weak structure for standards
... and w3c has little control
... w3c "might" not stop them
... if another group of stakeholders wanted to create another CG with a similar mission
... we could not stop them
... so the notion of doing major new development in a CG sets up a risk of fragmentation
... so I'm uncomfortable with the word "develop"
... and that the previous language was dropped

<jeff> Rachel: Address part of charter that was dropped

<jeff> ... that was moved out of the mission because it was not part of a "mission statement"

<jeff> ... belongs in a "scope" session

<jeff> ... new serializations of EPUB is explicitly out of scope

jeff: just to be clear...
... it wasn't obvious to me that new serializations were out of scope meant that new features were out of scope
... if it said no features I would not have raised the issue

<jeff> Dave: I'm not sure I understand the fear of having new features in CG

<jeff> ... EPUB 3.2 had some significant changes

<jeff> ... backwards compatible, but we had new media types

<jeff> ... CG has acted with care and responsibility

<jeff> ... EPUB 3 compatibility; not overstep our bounds

<jeff> ... saying "no new features in CG" is too strong a statement

<jeff> ... this charter is much clearer about the scope

<jeff> ... no plans to change packaging format

<jeff> ... compatibility

<jeff> ... prevents us from making major changes

<tzviya> dauwhe++

<Rachel> +1 dauwhe

<jeff> Garth: +1 to Dave

<jeff> ... there is a question of whether EPUB goes on the REC track

<jeff> ... I have a fear that it could go on REC track and not be approved

<jeff> ... so safer to keep development in CG

<jeff> ... no religious roadblocks

<jeff> ... out of scope "new serializations" - I think should be in scope

<jeff> ... conflicted further down in document

<jeff> ... prefer less bondage

<jeff> Wayne: I worked on WCAG for a long time

<jeff> ... I like the freedom of the CG

<jeff> ... A lot of bureaucracy in REC path

<jeff> ... a big decision

<jeff> Avneesh: I suggest deferring the mission statement

<jeff> ... will be redecided when we look at REC track

<jeff> ... let's look at specific objectives

<jeff> ... survey will direct us

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to respond to Dave about EPUB 3.2 and future concerns

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to object to doing work in the CG out of fear

<jeff> Jeff: I agree the CG has been responsible

<jeff> ... but it does not explain why we dropped "no major revisions done in the CG"

<jeff> Tzviya: We should not make decisions out of fear of rejection

<jeff> ... in the past we said: "What if the AC does not like our work"

<jeff> ... we can work with the AC

<jeff> ... if we have solid goals we should be able to present it to the larger W3C community

<jeff> ... we belong

<jeff> Rachel: Definition of serialization?

<Zakim> dauwhe, you wanted to answer Jeff's question about serialization

<jeff> Dave: The statement in the old charter was very unclear

<jeff> ... I've tried to make that more concrete by declaring things out of scope

<jeff> ... I incorrectly wrote the serialization EPUB thing

<jeff> ... I should have said we are not going to use JSON for package

<jeff> ... so the list of things out of scope [Dave reads a few] focus on compatibility

<jeff> ... and say we are not doing a major revision in more concrete terms

<jeff> ... we are coloring within the lines

<jeff> Rachel: There are 4 key items in the charter that we are talking about

<jeff> Dave: There is probably general agreement that we are responsible for accessibility specs

<jeff> ... satellite specs from IDPF timeframe

<jeff> ... talk about republishing them or integrating with EPUB

<jeff> ... in some cases retiring them.

<jeff> ... many ideas for EPUB

<jeff> Wayne: I like the idea that you are working on Reading system accessibility

<jeff> ... Looking to start at WCAG 2.1 as a baseline

<jeff> ... advances for low vision and other disabilities

<jeff> ... even if community views it as optional

<jeff> ... I like the specific topics

<jeff> ... I like that you have guidelines on writing summaries

<jeff> Rachel: We don't want to touch core specification

<jeff> ... Avneesh leading a task force that these are kept up to date

<jeff> ... satellite specs are extension specs that we are talking about

<jeff> ... don't know if they should be maintained

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about EPUB accessibility

<jeff> ... sometimes not implemented

jeff: I do support looking looking at the accessiblity spec
... at the risk at beating a dead horse
... epub a11y is a spec I want on the rec track
... and we want iso approval
... so there's fast-track approval through ISO for w3c RECs
... but that means we have to do a more complex process, via a national standard in Korea
... in the section of the document called deliverables
... there's a lot that reinforces my earlier concerns
... it's one thing to add a couple of media types
... but if epub3.next has html serialization, etc etc etc
... there's a lot here without getting a formal REC process

<jeff> Avneesh: The REC track of EPUB accessibility depends on EPUB going on REC track

<jeff> ... It is currently in final ballot stage for ISO

<jeff> ... going through direct ISO process

<jeff> ... WCAG 2.1 (Wayne's part) - definitely

<jeff> ... EPUB testing is based on WCAG

<jeff> ... that formalizes the testing protocol on WCAG

<jeff> Tzviya: I support looking satellite spec

<jeff> ... which do not include EPUB Accessibility

<jeff> ... some out of date; never implemented

<jeff> ... even if EPUB is on REC track, preliminary group in CG is OK

<jeff> ... EPUB accessibility v WCAG - 2.2. if FPWD very soon

<jeff> ... so we need to escalate EPUB contributions

jeff: I agree totally with tzviya's point
... that incubation of REC-track stuff should be done in the CG
... so I'm not at all concerned about that
... it has more to do with the tone than the content
... when you say the mission of the EPUB CG is to develop epub 3, that's exclusionary
... if we use "incubation" that's not exclusionary

<jeff> Avneesh: We should hold the discussion of the REC track

<tzviya> +1 Avneesh

<jeff> Rachel: Fair request

<wendyreid> +1 avneesh

<jeff> ... We agree that EPUB 3 Core specs should remain within CG

<jeff> ... satellite specs should be examined by CG

<jeff> ... haven't discussed EPUB Validation

<jeff> ... maintained by Daisy

<jeff> ... so within scope of the CG

+1

<Naomi> +1

<jeff> ... all of these seem reasonable to be in scope

<wolfgang> +1

<Avneesh> +1

<WayneDick> +1

<jeff> +1 to being in scope, but I would have phrased some of it differently

<tzviya> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<CharlesL> +1

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1

<toshiakikoike> +1

<jeff> Rachel: Let's look at Out of Scope list

<jeff> ... and cover the Note about the BG

<MURATA> I forgot to request the addition of Alt Style Tags as a satellite spec.

<jeff> Bill: Do we want to be explicit that changes that damage backward compatibility are out of scope

<jeff> Dave: We have language which says "will endeavor to be compatible"

<jeff> Bill: Shall we strengthen it?

<jeff> Dave: Conceptually yes; an extremely high priority

<jeff> ... wordsmith offline

jeff: I want to support what dave is saying, and be careful about declaring something out of scope
... and even if there is a small nit that is not incompatible with implementations we might be in trouble

<jeff> Murata: We should consider alt style text as a satellite spec

<jeff> Dave: We've had some changes in 3.2. Don't remember the details.

<jeff> ... lots of implementations

<jeff> ... can't commit on this call

<jeff> ... it's a web idea

https://github.com/w3c/publ-epub-revision/issues/1023

<jeff> Murata: But I'm not comfortable that we are not maintaining

<jeff> Dave: This might not be the best place

<jeff> Murata: But it was part of EPUB

<jeff> Dave: EPUB 3.2 does not prevent the usage

<jeff> ... deep technical discussion - let's talk in gh

<jeff> ... I'll add a note to the charter

<jeff> ... no decision on the call.

<jeff> Rachel: Comments on out of scope list?

<jeff> ... Objections?

+1

<WayneDick> +1

<garth> +1 (with OPF serialization fix)

<jeff> Charles: Do we want to call out that reading systems are out of scope?

<jeff> ... just as we say authoring tools are out of scope

<jeff> Dave: We define behaviors for epub reading systems

<jeff> ... authoring tools have come up before

<jeff> ... a bridge too far for the CG

<jeff> ... what we do is tied up with reading systems

<jeff> ... so not out of scope

<jeff> ... we could say that creating our own reading system is out of scope

<jeff> Avneesh: +1 to Dave

<jeff> ... need to define reading system behavior

<jeff> Rachel: good shape for out of scope

<jeff> ... Deliverable is big

<jeff> ... should we save it

<jeff> Murata: Disagree with the first sentence

<jeff> ... good maintenance is the primary goal

<jeff> ... not alignment with the web platform

<jeff> Rachel: Let's move this to next time

<jeff> Dave: +1

<jeff> ... Also we can comment on document and use mailing lists

<tzviya> +1

<jeff> ... keep the comments coming

<jeff> ... love, hate, or indifference is welcome

<Rachel> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CTwQIhmsyXh0tpS6RLmLLeGDkO5JKHV1FdaXoh3CdXI/edit#heading=h.74na8e1rw1u

<jeff> Rachel: Please continue to comment

<jeff> ... next meeting will focus on deliverables

<Avneesh> Next week is good for continuity.

<jeff> Rachel: Let's meet next week

<jeff> [adjourned]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/zzz//
Succeeded: s/q//
Present: jeff dauwhe toshiakikoike Rachel wolfgang MURATA Bill_Kasdorf Garth (for 27 min) Avneesh Naomi CharlesL duga tzviya Julian_Calderazi gpellegrino wendyreid JulieBlair
Found ScribeNick: jeff
Found ScribeNick: dauwhe
Inferring Scribes: jeff, dauwhe
Scribes: jeff, dauwhe
ScribeNicks: jeff, dauwhe

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)