13:42:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #epub
13:42:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/13-epub-irc
13:42:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:42:18 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
13:43:00 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-08-13: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-epub-wg/2021Aug/0005.html
13:43:01 <ivan> Chair: wendy, dauwhe
13:43:01 <ivan> Date: 2021-08-13
13:43:01 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-epub-wg/2021Aug/0005.html
13:43:01 <ivan> Meeting: EPUB 3 Working Group Telco
13:43:01 <ivan> Regrets+ gpellegrino
13:55:56 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #epub
13:56:55 <MURATA> MURATA has joined #epub
13:57:01 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #epub
13:57:04 <JF> JF has joined #epub
13:57:42 <dauwhe> present+
13:57:45 <dauwhe> Zakim, who is here?
13:57:45 <Zakim> Present: dauwhe
13:57:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see JF, wendyreid, MURATA, dauwhe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Karen, ivan, join_subline, github-bot
13:57:51 <wendyreid> present+
13:58:53 <MattChan> MattChan has joined #epub
13:58:53 <avneeshsingh> avneeshsingh has joined #epub
13:59:05 <MasakazuKitahara> MasakazuKitahara has joined #epub
13:59:10 <avneeshsingh> present+
13:59:16 <MasakazuKitahara> present+
13:59:41 <ivan> present+
13:59:45 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #epub
13:59:50 <ivan> present+ makoto
13:59:54 <CharlesL> present+
13:59:56 <ivan> present+ george
14:00:13 <ivan> present+ jf
14:00:22 <George> George has joined #epub
14:00:23 <ivan> present+ MattChan
14:00:34 <MattChan> scribe+
14:00:39 <dlazin> dlazin has joined #epub
14:00:40 <ivan> present+ dlazin
14:00:46 <dlazin> thanks, Ivan :)
14:00:50 <MURATA> present+
14:00:59 <George> George has joined #epub
14:02:00 <ivan> present+ BenSchroeter
14:02:04 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #epub
14:02:12 <BenSchroeter> present+
14:03:08 <MattChan> dauwhe: welcome back everyone
14:03:11 <MattChan> TOPIC: Welcome back
14:03:20 <MattChan> dauwhe: we're hoping for CR later this fall
14:03:23 <George> George has joined #epub
14:03:43 <MattChan> ... and there's a fair amount that needs to be done, including horizontal review
14:03:48 <ivan> present+ brady
14:03:51 <duga> duga has joined #epub
14:04:04 <duga> present+
14:04:09 <MattChan> ... we've done a lot with i18n, a lot with a11y, some action items around security and privacy
14:04:20 <JF> Present+
14:04:24 <MattChan> ... i've done a draft of the questionnaire for the security and privacy review
14:04:48 <MattChan> ... I'll probably send that in, although I'm not an expert, and there are some epub specific security issues that aren't in the broader web
14:04:52 <MattChan> ... and then of course testing
14:05:06 <MattChan> ... ivan has built some tooling for test reporting
14:05:18 <MattChan> ... and we're also working on documentation about how to write tests
14:05:23 <George> George has joined #epub
14:05:32 <MattChan> ... once that doc is ready, we'll get help from other WG members to write the tests
14:05:38 <MattChan> ... anything else?
14:05:56 <MattChan> ... we're going to have more virtual F2F for TPAC?
14:05:58 <MattChan> ivan: yes
14:06:35 <MattChan> wendyreid: its the latter half of october, the 28th and 29th are the tentative dates
14:07:06 <MattChan> ... following the same pattern as last time, so 28th is the evening meeting, and 29th would be a morning meeting
14:07:23 <George> George has joined #epub
14:07:38 <MattChan> ivan: we can create a simple environment where people can write tests
14:07:58 <MattChan> ... but we have to organize how we will get implementers to run our tests, and how they report back to us
14:08:32 <MattChan> ... we have a few implementers here
14:09:23 <George> George has joined #epub
14:09:28 <MattChan> BenSchroeter: Pearson's systems don't really expose epubs, they go to VitalSource etc.
14:09:37 <MattChan> ivan: okay, so we can talk to VitalSource
14:09:51 <MattChan> ... the big question is what happens for Apple and Amazon
14:10:04 <George> George has joined #epub
14:10:22 <MattChan> ... someone could of course run our tests through the Apple RS, but maybe its a little unfriendly to report results without them saying so?
14:10:41 <MattChan> dauwhe: no, I don't think so. They are a public UA.
14:10:53 <MattChan> ivan: okay, but I think we should try to get them to participate on their own
14:11:23 <George> George has joined #epub
14:11:52 <MattChan> dlazin: as we go along and write tests, I think it would be helpful to have a way to log whatever tests as part of the test development process
14:12:08 <duga> q+
14:12:15 <ivan> present+ aimee
14:12:17 <dauwhe> ack duga
14:12:17 <MattChan> ... being able to share those preliminary results might help convince people to participate (who otherwise wouldn't)
14:12:59 <MattChan> duga: this is different from the way we've done testing in the past. We're just trying to find two positive test results. (i.e. two implementations)
14:13:03 <dauwhe> q?
14:13:21 <MattChan> ivan: well, the report at the end will expose whether each UA passes or fails each test
14:14:07 <MattChan> dlazin: I was thinking that maybe the tool could show that table in a state of partial completeness (i.e. update as more results become reported)
14:14:26 <MattChan> duga: have we communicated at all with Apple? Trying to get a sense of where Apple is on all this.
14:14:40 <MattChan> dauwhe: I've emailed Tess and got no reply. I can try again.
14:15:09 <MattChan> ivan: Yeah, this outreach would be the sort of thing that would normally happen at TPAC
14:15:41 <MattChan> BenSchroeter: isn't part of the reason for testing to ensure that we're keeping backwards compat, and isn't that something UAs want?
14:17:20 <MattChan> dauwhe: we'd love to meet with APA at TPAC
14:17:31 <MattChan> ... if there are other groups that we should be meeting with please let the chairs know
14:17:37 <avneeshsingh> q+
14:17:43 <dauwhe> ack av
14:18:04 <JF> Q+
14:18:09 <dauwhe> ack JF
14:18:09 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: there is a meeting with APA already. Mainly for the a11y vocabs, but not specific to epub. For publishing in general.
14:19:00 <MattChan> JF: there's a new activity at W3C over setting up registries. I believe its going to be voted on at TPAC. We want to coordinate with other groups to make sure everyone is using these vocabs.
14:19:42 <avneeshsingh> q+
14:19:54 <MattChan> ... the APA is noticing that different groups are building out a11y vocabs that are generally the same, but with nuanced differences
14:20:02 <dauwhe> ack avn
14:20:06 <MattChan> ... so this is going to be discussed at the upcoming meeting
14:20:52 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: from a publishing point of view, it would be challenging to have these vocabularies in the W3C registries because so much of the ownership over these is outside W3C (ONIX, MARC, etc.)
14:21:08 <MattChan> JF: right, so we'll do our best and not let perfect be the enemy of good
14:21:11 <dauwhe> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1763
14:21:18 <MattChan> TOPIC: Structural Vocabularies
14:21:39 <ivan> scribejs, issue 1763
14:22:20 <Aimee> Aimee has joined #epub
14:22:35 <Aimee> + present
14:22:52 <MattChan> dauwhe: this all started on the mailing list with a chain about SSV. About the nuance between the different terms. Some are common in the publishing world, but not used outside. Over the years we've had questions about the SSV. And as part of the formal spec process, how do we show usage or implementation of these terms?
14:23:02 <ivan> q+
14:23:06 <dauwhe> ack iv
14:23:11 <MattChan> ivan: There are 2 different things here.
14:23:31 <MattChan> ... at the moment, the way the document is written is such that the entire vocab is normative
14:24:49 <JF> Q+
14:24:59 <MattChan> ... all the terms are normative. What this means in practice is proving that these terms are used by the community (e.g. epub authors). In analogy to traditional testing, the criteria that we had was that there should be at least two independent significant epub publishers that use that term in production.
14:25:02 <dauwhe> q+
14:25:18 <MattChan> ... if there are two of these, then it is normative
14:25:43 <MattChan> ... question is whether there is any probability that this test would show that the entire vocab is really normative
14:26:03 <MattChan> ... my feeling is no. There are specific terms that would pass this definition of normative, but not all
14:27:04 <MattChan> ivan: just a note that epubcheck is not a concern here as it has been changed to not flag terms in epub:type even if they are outside the SSV
14:27:40 <MattChan> ... one thing we can do is make the SSV non-normative
14:27:51 <_join__epub> _join__epub has joined #epub
14:28:06 <MattChan> ... then it can come out of the spec, go into a registry
14:28:24 <MattChan> ... but we need to determine which terms should be normative vs non-normative before we go to CR
14:28:34 <MattChan> ... the other issue is whether some of the terms are vaguely defined
14:28:47 <dauwhe> ack JF
14:28:49 <MattChan> ... but this later is an editorial job, whereas the first issue is more about process
14:29:27 <MattChan> JF: i can speak to the perspective of a11y concerns. One of the issues we have to deal with in terms of WCAG is that our spec has been taken up by regulators and adopted into law
14:29:55 <MattChan> ... for that reason we have to make sure that definitions are not changed on the fly, which could put people out of spec and cause legal consequences
14:31:31 <MattChan> ... e.g. for micro-formats, the definitions existed on a public wiki that anyone could change. Presented legal risk for organizations relying on it.
14:32:13 <avneeshsingh> +1 Dave, epubtype is not for accessibility
14:32:28 <MattChan> dauwhe: To ivan's point on usage of these terms, I'm optimistic. Hachette uses 80% of these terms regularly.
14:32:41 <avneeshsingh> aria roles have taken over. Media Overlays uses some EPUB-type.
14:32:47 <MattChan> ... problem is that very few of the terms have any effect on many UAs
14:33:04 <MattChan> ... some stuff about footnotes, endnotes, and the toc
14:33:13 <avneeshsingh> q+
14:33:23 <JF> Q+ to ask about a MUST NOT clause there Dave
14:33:31 <MattChan> ... so it doesn't support a11y, and it doesn't do much outside of a11y
14:33:36 <ivan> ack dauwhe
14:33:50 <MattChan> ... how to maintain? We've ported the main terms over to DPUB-ARIA
14:34:00 <dauwhe> ack av
14:34:01 <MattChan> ... in terms of pure epub:type, not sure
14:34:18 <ivan> q+
14:34:30 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: the definite list that JF was referring to should be ARIA roles, which are fairly stable
14:34:53 <MattChan> ... epub:type is not really for RS, but more for production systems
14:35:04 <dauwhe> ack JF
14:35:04 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about a MUST NOT clause there Dave
14:35:08 <MattChan> ... so I think we should pull this out and put it in a registry or a WG note
14:35:26 <MattChan> JF: what about a must not clause in the spec? "SSV must not be used for a11y considerations"
14:36:05 <MattChan> ... I was told that SSV should not be used to replicate nav functions, but it seems that this is something that Thorium does
14:36:21 <MattChan> ... so this change would deter people from misusing
14:36:51 <JF> SHOULD NOT (Ref RFC 2119)
14:36:56 <MattChan> dauwhe: one thing is not sure how I would test that must not, would seem to require knowing why a SSV terms was put into an epub
14:37:11 <dauwhe> ack iv
14:37:15 <MattChan> ... I see this as a matter of educating the community
14:37:50 <MattChan> ivan: agree that MUST NOT is not appropriate here as we couldn't test it
14:38:11 <MattChan> ... but we could make the purpose of SSV much clearer in the spec, and think this should be done
14:38:47 <MattChan> ... back to epubcheck thing, it seems it would do no harm to take SSV out of spec and turned into a separate note, and then we see what happens
14:39:16 <MattChan> ... but there might be 1 or 2 terms that are used by RS (e.g. 'cover')
14:39:28 <MattChan> ... so these we'd keep as normative
14:39:33 <dauwhe> q?
14:39:40 <wendyreid> q+
14:39:44 <dauwhe> ack w
14:39:54 <avneeshsingh> we can also consider W3C registries for this
14:40:05 <MattChan> wendyreid: as far as i know, the only epub:type that is categorically relied upon by RS is footnot
14:40:10 <MattChan> s/footnot/footnote
14:40:21 <MattChan> ... there are other ways for the cover to be identified
14:40:49 <MattChan> dauwhe: over the course of the last few revisions of epub we've made a concerted effort to bring in all the registries that were floating around because having them separate made spec hard to read
14:41:02 <ivan> q+
14:41:03 <MattChan> ... i think some of those registries just ended up being not needed
14:41:25 <dauwhe> ack iv
14:41:26 <MattChan> ... in this case its maybe not a bad idea to move the SSV away from the core spec because of its lack of utility
14:41:54 <dauwhe> q+
14:42:02 <MattChan> ivan: now, the SSV is subsection 8 of appendix D. While we are at it, we may want to take another look at all the subsections there
14:42:15 <MattChan> ... try to be consistent in how we treat these
14:42:38 <avneeshsingh> q+
14:42:43 <dauwhe> ack dau
14:42:44 <MattChan> dauwhe: i'm wary of having some of these terms be normative, and the rest non-normative. I think this will confuse people.
14:42:46 <dauwhe> ack avn
14:42:54 <MattChan> ... although I see the distinction
14:43:22 <dauwhe> q?
14:43:38 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: in the pub manifest WG we're relying a lot on Schema.org vocabs
14:43:52 <George> George has joined #epub
14:43:58 <MattChan> ivan: but references to Schema.org were considered to be as strong as normative, but yes, formally its not normative
14:44:01 <George> q+
14:44:12 <George> present+
14:44:25 <dauwhe> ack George
14:44:28 <MattChan> ... Schema.org is on the borderline of whether something is normative by virtue of being used by so many sites
14:45:07 <MattChan> George: we have footnote in DPUB-ARIA so i would suggest moving all of this vocab into a note, and then just recommend using DPUB-ARIA for semantics
14:45:18 <MattChan> ... and not have epubcheck report on this
14:45:42 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: just flagging that we need to maintain backwards compat
14:46:16 <MattChan> dauwhe: right, using epub:type won't invalidate an epub. Consistent with how HTML is supposed to ignore attributes it doesn't understand
14:46:30 <MattChan> ... so little harm to allowing epub:type to continue existing in epubs
14:46:47 <dauwhe> q?
14:46:47 <MattChan> ... but want to move away from using it to convey information about a11y, semantics
14:46:53 <MattChan> george: agree
14:46:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:47:33 <MattChan> JF: where would we move the SSV?
14:47:40 <MattChan> ivan: into a WG note
14:47:56 <MattChan> duga: so there would be no normative way of doing footnotes (even though they would still exist)
14:48:18 <dauwhe> q+
14:48:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:49:05 <MattChan> JF: what about the proposal to have registries that would be normative even though they aren't full spec
14:49:16 <MattChan> ivan: if we can't test these terms then they can't be normative
14:49:28 <MattChan> dauwhe: does Google Play do pop-ups?
14:49:30 <MattChan> duga: yes
14:49:37 <MattChan> dauwhe: based on epub:type?
14:50:26 <MattChan> duga: yes, but we also look for numbers that have <sup> around them, but excepting certain cases, etc. etc. It's involved.
14:50:45 <MattChan> wendyreid: Kobo has the exact same thing
14:51:05 <MattChan> dauwhe: does anyone look at the DPUB-ARIA vocab for this?
14:51:09 <MattChan> wendyreid: no
14:51:11 <MattChan> duga: no?
14:51:14 <George> George has joined #epub
14:51:32 <MattChan> wendyreid: but it would be trivial to change over to looking for DPUB-ARIA, since we already have the logic of checking for epub:type
14:51:47 <CharlesL> q+
14:51:52 <dauwhe> ack dau
14:51:53 <MattChan> dauwhe: so could we migrate the things that rely on epub:type to refer to DPUB-ARIA?
14:51:53 <George> George has joined #epub
14:51:54 <ivan> ack dauwhe
14:51:56 <dauwhe> ack ch
14:52:20 <MattChan> CharlesL: our Global Certified Accessible program is pushing for use of DPUB-ARIA vocab, especially for footnotes
14:52:31 <MattChan> ... and we're de-emphasizing the use of epub:type
14:52:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:53:05 <MattChan> ... we're fine if there's duplication between EPUB and DPUB-ARIA, but we don't require it
14:53:23 <MattChan> ... s/require it/require use of both vocabs
14:53:35 <avneeshsingh> q+
14:53:37 <George> George has joined #epub
14:54:02 <Karen> Karen has joined #epub
14:54:07 <MattChan> dauwhe: not quite ready to resolve here. Could we put the question of how to separate out the SSV to the group?
14:54:23 <dauwhe> ack avn
14:54:41 <MattChan> ivan: we could resolve that this is the direction we want to take with the SSV, with language to decided upon
14:54:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:55:32 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: in epub a11y 1.0, we required both epub:type and DPUB-ARIA. But in recent revision we de-emphasized epub:type. In MO we do use epub:type, but this could be changed over time
14:56:15 <MattChan> ... one thing about DPUB-ARIA is difficult to modify. Good for a11y, but might not work for publishers who rely on it for process
14:56:17 <wendyreid> Proposed: Explore removing the epub:type vocabulary from the specification and into it's own note
14:56:22 <JF> +1
14:56:22 <BenSchroeter> +1
14:56:23 <ivan> +1
14:56:26 <MattChan> +1
14:56:26 <CharlesL> +1
14:56:26 <wendyreid> +1
14:56:28 <duga> +1
14:56:28 <MURATA> +1
14:56:28 <MasakazuKitahara> +1
14:56:29 <dauwhe> +1
14:56:29 <Aimee> +1
14:56:30 <avneeshsingh> +1
14:56:55 <George> George has joined #epub
14:57:16 <wendyreid> RESOLVED: Explore removing the epub:type vocabulary from the specification and into it's own note
14:57:16 <dlazin> +1
14:57:24 <dauwhe> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/pull/1756
14:57:27 <MattChan> TOPIC: Custom Attributes
14:57:43 <ivan> scribejs, issue 1756
14:57:44 <MattChan> dauwhe: we took out the custom attributes section, but it turns out there are RS that use these
14:57:54 <ivan> s/issue/pr/
14:57:56 <MattChan> ... so now we want to put it back
14:57:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:58:07 <dlazin>  q+
14:58:18 <dauwhe> ack dl
14:58:19 <Aimee> Aimee has left #epub
14:58:57 <George> George has joined #epub
14:58:58 <MattChan> dlazin: can we get some documentation on what exists in terms of custom attributes? So people can make use of them in their books?
14:59:07 <MattChan> dauwhe: we can see about including some examples
15:00:22 <wendyreid> Proposed: Merge PR 1756
15:00:25 <dauwhe> +1
15:00:26 <wendyreid> +1
15:00:26 <dlazin> +1
15:00:26 <MattChan> +1
15:00:26 <ivan> +1
15:00:27 <CharlesL> +1
15:00:27 <BenSchroeter> +1
15:00:28 <duga> +1
15:00:29 <MasakazuKitahara> +1
15:00:36 <wendyreid> RESOLVED: Merge PR 1756
15:00:43 <MattChan> dauwhe: okay, thanks everyone!
15:00:45 <George> George has joined #epub
15:01:01 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/13-epub-minutes.html ivan
15:01:14 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:01:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dauwhe, wendyreid, avneeshsingh, MasakazuKitahara, ivan, makoto, CharlesL, george, jf, MattChan, dlazin, MURATA, BenSchroeter, brady, duga,
15:01:17 <Zakim> ... aimee, present
15:01:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:01:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/13-epub-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:19 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #epub
15:03:58 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #epub
15:38:27 <join_subline> join_subline has joined #epub
15:43:49 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #epub
15:58:00 <Karen> Karen has joined #epub
16:07:59 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:07:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items