Meeting minutes
<AvneeshSingh> EPUB/schema.org metadata for publisher contact.
Welcome and meeting schedule.
AvneeshSingh: meeting 1/3 thurs. of each month. 1 may holiday and 15 is GAAD day? should we have one on this meeting? We could move to 29th?
gpellegrino: We have the book publishing fair. to the week after or 29
AvneeshSingh: June 5th we have a DAISY board meeting.
Charles: Benetech also has a GAAD day at this time on the 15
EPUB/schema.org metadata for publisher contact.
AvneeshSingh: Decided we will have next meeting on May 29th.
AvneeshSingh: can we have a schema.org vocabulary or EPUB metadata
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
gpellegrino: Rick J presented some info on this.
… ONIX there are 3 different ways publish contact, trusted inter mediator, and certifer conducted.
mgarrish: if we make a11y:contact we could use refines for different type of contact. not sure if we want 3 matching types with ONIX.
… do we want lots of properties or one we can refine.
… contact object but it doesn't play well with EPUB metadata to try to link to schema.org easier to mint our own for now.
CharlesL: Do we want to go with refines?
mgarrish: at this point it doesn't matter, we already use it so... it is ours so we can do what we want.
CharlesL: UX guide refines can be difficult.
mgarrish: if its only 1 level deep of refines its fairly easy to map. but individual property names might be the easier way to go with less pushback from W3C.
AvneeshSingh: May look to RickJ or Ivan to get feedback on this.
mgarrish: I can update the issue giving examples showing each way.
mgarrish: exemptions we didn't want in the spec as its circumventing a11y.
AccessmodeSufficient is not compulsory
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
AvneeshSingh: user experience guide is very dependent on it.
CharlesL: GCA requires it.
mgarrish: it can be repetitive metadata.
gpellegrino: end user it is more important to know AMS instead of just AM. I think it should be required and AM could be optional.
CharlesL: that could be a problem for backward compatibility.
mgarrish: ISO specs to be backward compatibility is a concern.
gpellegrino: making ASM required is important. mapping AM is far less obvious. lets focus on ASM.
… we could wait until the next major version. metadata by LIA / GCA is already requiring it. l
AvneeshSingh: informative text if you really want users to discover non visual reading you need to put this "textual" in AMS. If we can make the text stronger might be useful here.
gpellegrino: maybe add a note.
mgarrish: whole note is informative. we tried to add the singular AccessModes.
gpellegrino: ACE could manage this as well, minor issue to include AMS.
Charles +1
… are we decided it will be 1.1.1?
mgarrish: : if we go to 1.2 we need to then add new conformance values.
gpellegrino: we may jump to 1.2 if we need to do for Fixed Layout. but.
Upgrading the floor WCAG specification for EPUB Accessibility 1.1.x from WCAG 2.0 to 2.2.
AvneeshSingh: pressure to upgrade to WCAG 2.2
gpellegrino: not sure if we need to mandate in our spec. we can add a note to strongly recommended 2.2 but in Europe there is still strong support for 2.1 they are updating to 2.2 but that will be another year.
… 2.0 in other countries is still the recommended level. People may not move to the new version because they are not required by local law.
mgarrish: the spec recommends to follow the latest version and AA. and EA is in informative text.
gpellegrino: from Germans we said EPUB 1.1 is aligned with EAA. but we think there is a miss understanding.
AvneeshSingh: they did say we should then bump to 2.1 as a minimum
gpellegrino: I don't see any notes about follow 2.0.
mgarrish: 1.0 is superseded
AvneeshSingh: Matt create an issue for this and document our discussion here.
CharlesL: GCA and LIA require WCAG 2.2 AA.
AvneeshSingh: maybe we have an appendix reference to EAA and Title II requirements etc. India follows EN301