00:00:15 present+ 00:00:40 Chair: wendyreid 00:01:37 present+ 00:02:38 marisa has joined #epub 00:03:15 scribe+ 00:03:33 duga has joined #epub 00:03:41 present_ 00:03:47 present+ 00:03:48 Topic 1: Multiple Renditions 00:03:48 https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1436 00:04:01 https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/pull/1438 00:04:03 wendyreid: this is continuing the discussion from last week 00:04:05 q+ 00:04:19 Garth has joined #epub 00:04:27 ... the suggestion is to remove references to multiple renditions from the spec 00:04:29 Q+ 00:04:29 ack dauwhe 00:04:46 dauwhe: the possibility of multiple renditions has always been in epub 00:04:52 ... but has not achieve a lot of uptake 00:05:06 s/from the spec/from the main document of the spec 00:05:43 ... i'm not aware of any major RS that supports it 00:06:06 ... with those references in the spec, the precision of the language required becomes cumbersome 00:06:24 ... it also gives casual readers of the spec the impression that multiple renditions is more prevalent than it is 00:06:56 ... Matt G's idea is to have those references to multiple rendition moved from where they currently are (scattered throughout the spec) into a satellite document 00:07:20 ... Matt G has already started this process of editorializing the spec 00:07:28 ack Garth 00:07:34 ... the satellite would be a WG note, and not a Rec track document 00:07:43 q+ 00:08:20 Garth: there is at least one RS that supports it, so it makes sense to still keep multiple rendition functionality in the spec 00:08:28 ack shiestyle 00:08:31 ... that's why I am in favor of Matt G's direction 00:08:55 shiestyle: multiple renditions are currently used in Japan, mostly for educational purposes 00:09:00 q+ to mention thorium/readium and expectations of new reading systems 00:09:06 q+ 00:09:19 ack dauwhe 00:09:19 dauwhe, you wanted to mention thorium/readium and expectations of new reading systems 00:09:30 ... but I agree with moving the multiple rendition specific portion of the spec to a separate document as long as this means that multiple renditions are not deprecated 00:09:44 dauwhe: Readium also had some support for multiple renditions 00:10:14 ... at the time Microsoft was working on epub support in Edge 00:10:32 ... as part of that process, they found some oddball things in the spec that they found confusing 00:10:44 ack marisa 00:10:54 ... if another browser were to ask for advice on supporting epub today, I would recommend that they not support multiple renditions 00:11:10 marisa: wish we could go back to 2008 and reverse the decision to support multiple renditions 00:11:22 ... support is kind of mess right now 00:11:47 q+ 00:11:52 q+ 00:11:58 ack dauwhe 00:12:12 ack duga 00:12:47 duga: the first thing that we tell you about epub in the spec is something about multiple renditions, I can see how that is confusing 00:12:54 +1 00:14:54 Proposed: Remove mentions of multiple renditions from the core and reading systems documents, close issue #1436 and merge PR #1438 00:15:27 +1 00:15:30 +2 00:15:35 +1 00:15:39 +1 00:15:44 +1 00:15:46 +1 00:15:55 Resolved: Remove mentions of multiple renditions from the core and reading systems documents, close issue #1436 and merge PR #1438 00:16:39 http://idpf.org/epub/renditions/multiple/ 00:16:39 wendyreid: to keep all the documents together, Ivan has proposed that we publish the multiple renditions piece as a note 00:16:58 dauwhe: here is a link to the old IDPF version 00:17:27 Proposal: Publish Multiple Renditions as a Working Group Note 00:17:33 +1 00:17:34 +1 00:17:37 +1 00:17:39 +1 00:17:40 +1 00:17:41 +1 00:17:44 +1 00:17:48 Resolved: Publish Multiple Renditions as a Working Group Note 00:17:49 +1 00:18:19 wendyreid: one of the other documents we have to publish is the overview note that ties everything together 00:18:55 Proposed: Publish Overview as a Working Group Note 00:18:58 +1 00:19:04 +1 00:19:10 +1 00:19:18 +1 00:19:22 wendyreid: this is the overview document that is the introduction to the spec 00:19:28 +1 00:19:29 +1 00:19:40 +1 00:20:01 https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub33/overview/index.html 00:20:11 Resolved: Publish Overview as a Working Group Note 00:21:23 https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1061 00:21:33 Topic: External Content and iFrames 00:22:00 wendyreid: the use case that brought this up was embedding YouTube videos (or similar content) in textbooks 00:22:18 q+ 00:22:21 s/embedding/linking 00:22:24 ack dauwhe 00:22:42 dauwhe: this is a complicated issue because it pulls us in 2 different directions 00:22:52 ... one of the strengths of epub is that it is self-contained 00:22:54 q+ 00:23:00 ... we've allowed this before with external fonts 00:23:16 q+ 00:23:16 ... BUT this use case is reasonably compelling too so... 00:23:21 ack marisa 00:24:01 marisa: Has anyone given much thought to the relationship between fallbacks and external content? 00:24:35 ... if you fallback to an image or transcript, or something like that that is easy to bundle, is that allowed? 00:24:54 q- 00:25:12 ... Matt G clarifies the distinction between foreign and external resources in the issue 00:25:20 ... which is on point 00:25:48 dauwhe: one reason that we put this on the agenda was to get a sense of whether this use case is important in the Asian market 00:25:59 q+ 00:26:03 ack Garth 00:26:11 ... has this limit frustrated Asian content authors 00:26:19 q+ 00:26:26 Garth: how far along are we to allowing video content without fallbacks? Are we already there? 00:26:41 wendyreid: in practice, i've seen video elements with external urls as href 00:26:46 ack duga 00:27:05 duga: it feels like this is worse, because video and audio are limited in what you can do with them 00:27:26 ... you could just make an epub shell that references your real book that exists in a totally separate website 00:27:35 dauwhe: yeah, it's a slippery slope 00:27:39 Suzuki has joined #epub 00:28:17 wendyreid: i'm pretty sure that in the wild i've seen youtube videos in ebooks (not that they work well/at all depending on the RS) 00:28:42 ... but what possible way do we have to distinguish a link to a video vs a completely different website 00:29:54 duga: we'd like to think that epubs are essentially web content, but there are lots of ways in which RS and browsers are different (e.g. security) 00:30:38 BenSchroeter: i think the fact that we've already seen this in the wild pushes me to err in favor of wider adoption, but also mitigate it in some way 00:30:44 ... i.e. not recommend it 00:30:56 ... but disallowing it entirely is problematic 00:31:45 duga: I'm not seeing youtube in ebooks 00:32:00 https://github.com/w3c/epubcheck/issues/852 00:32:18 wendyreid: the place i think it might happen more often is where size limitation come into play 00:32:46 ... maybe its full of interviews or for whatever reason its full of videos 00:33:21 ... if we wanted to cut the size from GBs back to MBs, one way is to link out to the videos 00:33:37 q+ 00:33:41 ack dauwhe 00:33:48 q+ 00:34:04 BenSchroeter: I do see how it is a slippery slope, we should try to make that slope less slippery 00:34:55 ack duga 00:34:56 dauwhe: there are a lot of moving pieces here... maybe some of us should revisit the issues in more detail, get the problem in better focus 00:35:17 duga: I'm thinking about the security implications of this, and we aren't ready for this 00:35:42 ... I don't think many RS devs have consider external content as an attack vector 00:35:59 q+ to say the bad word 00:36:04 ... we should talk to HTML people to understand what the risks are here 00:37:21 ... the functionality of playing an externally hosted video in your epub already exists, but we need to better understand the risks of doing so 00:37:22 ack dauwhe 00:37:22 dauwhe, you wanted to say the bad word 00:38:01 wendyreid: one of the things we should start thinking about is horizonal review 00:38:12 ... one of those topics for review will be security and privacy 00:38:47 dauwhe: it sounds like we're not ready to resolve on this right now 00:38:54 wendyreid: agree 00:39:07 dauwhe: so we take it back to github for now 00:39:52 wendyreid: might be worth taking this to the business group? Asking e.g. ]if there is additional need to make special provision for video in addition to what we already have. 00:40:06 s/]if/if 00:40:32 s/additional need/a need 00:40:51 next week will be our last meeting of 2020 00:41:00 no meeting on week of 21st or 28th 00:41:27 wendyreid: january 7th will be first meeting of 2021, at this same time (7 eastern) 00:41:48 RRSAgent: draft minutes 00:41:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/11-epub-minutes.html dauwhe 00:41:55 RRSAgent, make logs public 00:42:36 RRSAgent: bye 00:42:36 I see no action items