12:03:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pmwg
12:03:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-pmwg-irc
12:03:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:03:38 <Zakim> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group
12:03:51 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Details 2025-05-08: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2025May/0003.html
12:03:52 <ivan> Chair: susan
12:03:52 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group Telco
12:03:52 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2025May/0003.html
12:03:53 <ivan> regrets+ wendy
12:56:11 <gautierchomel> gautierchomel has joined #pmwg
12:57:04 <SueNeu> SueNeu has joined #pmwg
12:57:12 <SueNeu> present+
12:57:16 <ivan> present+
12:57:24 <ivan> present+ gautierchomel
12:58:20 <ivan> present+ avneesh
12:58:30 <AvneeshSingh> AvneeshSingh has joined #pmwg
12:58:51 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #pmwg
12:59:06 <toshiakikoike> toshiakikoike has joined #pmwg
12:59:18 <toshiakikoike> present+
12:59:18 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pmwg
12:59:54 <duga> duga has joined #pmwg
13:00:00 <ivan> present+ duga
13:00:01 <duga> present+
13:00:42 <ivan> present+ shinya
13:00:59 <gautierchomel> scribe+ gautierchomel
13:03:00 <CharlesL1> CharlesL1 has joined #pmwg
13:03:06 <ivan> present+ charlesl
13:03:07 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pmwg
13:03:21 <CharlesL1> present+
13:04:37 <SueNeu> topic: Review HTML community survey
13:05:08 <mgarrish> present+
13:05:25 <SueNeu> The HTML Survey https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yUYMXh-6j7vbNpXxWOCAACn7e4cr9ZlKV9B4pFZ9xZE/edit?usp=sh
13:05:28 <gautierchomel> SueNeu: hope everyone had a chance to review the proposed survey. Here is the link again.
13:05:34 <ivan> q+
13:05:53 <ivan> ack q+
13:05:58 <SueNeu> ack: ivan
13:07:23 <gautierchomel> @ivan I added points one hour ago. A paragraphe to clarify for the community, the difference between epub2 xhtml1.1 and epub3 xhtml serialisation of html.
13:07:33 <gautierchomel> q+
13:07:33 <duga> q+
13:07:44 <shiestyle> ack ivan
13:07:54 <MasakazuKitahara> MasakazuKitahara has joined #pmwg
13:08:03 <MasakazuKitahara> present+
13:08:06 <SueNeu> ack: duga
13:08:12 <shiestyle> ack duga
13:09:32 <SueNeu> ack: gautierchomel
13:09:35 <gautierchomel> duga: i think we should use xhtml syntax instead of serialisation. It's minor but important. We need to be clear and avoid confusion. We already support html, it's the new syntax we are supporting now.
13:09:54 <ivan> scribe+ seuneu
13:09:58 <shiestyle> ack gauti
13:10:48 <SueNeu> gautierchomel: we have to use fewer open questions or control who we send the survey to
13:11:09 <duga> q+
13:11:16 <SueNeu> …we should chose if we want to question technical teams and make the questions more focused
13:11:31 <SueNeu> …I would choose the technical part
13:11:34 <ivan> q+
13:11:37 <SueNeu> ack:duga
13:11:44 <shiestyle> ack duga
13:12:35 <gautierchomel> duga: the question is how do we distribute this survey. With modern tools we can do contextualised questions.
13:12:40 <mgarrish> q+
13:12:52 <SueNeu> ack: ivan
13:13:01 <shiestyle> ack ivan
13:13:41 <gautierchomel> ivan: i would prefer it not to become a big project. contextualising would need more thought and work on logics.
13:14:40 <SueNeu> ack: mgarrish
13:14:44 <gautierchomel> ivan: the whole question is of interest and importance for technical people only. Those who produce complex epub, tools, checkers, reading systems. Target is technical people only
13:14:46 <gautierchomel> q+
13:14:55 <shiestyle> ack mgarrish
13:15:34 <gautierchomel> mgarrish: I would prefer not to limit the audience or the timeframe.
13:15:45 <SueNeu> ack gautierchomel
13:15:52 <gautierchomel> q-
13:16:39 <gautierchomel> q+
13:16:47 <SueNeu> scribe+
13:17:19 <CharlesL1> q+
13:17:37 <SueNeu> gautierchomel: the time spent to make the survey and analyze the data collected, might be better
13:18:04 <SueNeu> … to make it simple
13:18:20 <SueNeu> …we don't need too many people to respond
13:18:44 <SueNeu> …better to be sure the right people get access to the survey
13:18:54 <SueNeu> … we could each send the survey to people we know
13:19:06 <SueNeu> ack CharlesL
13:19:34 <mgarrish> q+
13:19:49 <SueNeu> ack mgarrish
13:20:02 <gautierchomel> CharlesL1: I would not differentiate workflow / ingestion. It's a duplication.
13:20:37 <duga> q+
13:20:50 <gautierchomel> mgarrish: section 1 is suffitient to get respondent context, i agree there is no need to complex context mechanism
13:20:50 <SueNeu> ack duga
13:22:05 <AvneeshSingh> present+
13:22:14 <CharlesL1> q+
13:22:22 <SueNeu> ack CharlesL
13:23:04 <ivan> q+
13:23:21 <SueNeu> q+
13:23:25 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:24:06 <gautierchomel> CharlesL1: we want to know if HTML will be used, being for creation or ingestion, and in which timeframe. It's the same question for creation workflow and ingetsion workflow.
13:24:35 <gautierchomel> q+
13:25:40 <gautierchomel> ivan: I see the point, section 1 and 2 are about who is the respondent, the real question is only in section 3.
13:26:43 <SueNeu> ack SueNeu
13:28:03 <ivan> q+
13:28:08 <SueNeu> q?
13:28:15 <SueNeu> ack gautierchomel
13:28:18 <gautierchomel> SueNeu: i also have questions about how we'll deal with the collected data and communicate about it.
13:29:15 <CharlesL1> q+
13:29:25 <mgarrish> q+
13:29:54 <SueNeu> gautierchomel: I think we should use a github issue for the tech people
13:30:01 <SueNeu> we don't need to collect a lot of responses
13:30:21 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:32:26 <duga> +1 to ivan and gautierchomel
13:32:26 <SueNeu> ack CharlesL
13:32:29 <gautierchomel> ivan: we have one simple question: what happens if we accept html syntax? Which issue will appear? Then yes, Issue tracker is probably a better tool than a survey. We don't need details, only raising the potential issues.
13:33:22 <duga> q+
13:33:23 <SueNeu> ack mgarrish
13:33:26 <gautierchomel> CharlesL1: agree with simple large question.
13:33:49 <CharlesL1> example for the question: "How strongly to you agree/disagree with the addition of HTML Syntax addition: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree."
13:34:42 <gautierchomel> mgarrish: also to ask, if you don't plan to implement, why? Instead of checkbox, we need to understand the why Yes or No.
13:34:51 <SueNeu> ack duga
13:37:31 <CharlesL1> q+
13:37:59 <ivan> q+
13:38:16 <gautierchomel> duga: Interesting idea, a one quetsion survey because no one knows for today. Maybe we'll need a bigger and detailed survey later. Not sure github is a good place anyway, it could end up with endless phylosophical discussions. Email sounds more reasonable for now, so we can collect individual feedbacks without having comments on other people responses..
13:38:20 <SueNeu> ack CharleL
13:38:26 <SueNeu> ack CharlesL
13:38:50 <AvneeshSingh> q+
13:39:00 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:39:12 <gautierchomel> CharlesL1: thru benetech and GCA we have a mailing list. Daisy has different ones too. We can use them to send the survey.
13:39:23 <shiestyle> q+
13:40:16 <SueNeu> ack AvneeshSingh
13:40:21 <gautierchomel> ivan: Could someone put together those discussions and make a proposal? So we don't spend months on discussing details.
13:41:40 <ivan> q+
13:42:13 <gautierchomel> AvneeshSingh: i agree with one large question, but still a due form method seems better to me, being google or survey monkey. This way we make sure to have one only point of collect and share the results.
13:42:19 <SueNeu> ack shiestyle
13:43:37 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:43:42 <gautierchomel> shiestyle: we need strong context if we don't want "no move" answers. We need to collect issues and ways to solve them.
13:44:00 <gautierchomel> q+
13:44:10 <SueNeu> q+
13:45:06 <gautierchomel> ivan: we have wbs, a w3c form for surveys.
13:45:07 <SueNeu> ack gautierchomel
13:45:38 <SueNeu> gautierchomel: I can make a proposal for the text part of the survey
13:46:30 <ivan> q+
13:46:34 <ivan> ack SueNeu
13:46:43 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:47:52 <SueNeu> gautierchomel: should I make the proposal text in github?
13:48:23 <SueNeu> AveneeshSingh: Google docs can have accessibility issues
13:48:52 <SueNeu> topic: task forces
13:49:22 <shiestyle> q+
13:49:26 <ivan> subtopic: digital comics
13:49:39 <SueNeu> ack shiestyle
13:50:22 <gautierchomel> shiestyle: comics task force will meet in the next weeks. we are still discussing next steps with my co chair. I was waiting for some feedbacks from the publishing comunity.
13:51:25 <ivan> subtopic: a11y
13:51:34 <AvneeshSingh> See minutes: https://w3c.github.io/pm-wg/minutes/2025-05-01-a11y.html
13:53:14 <gautierchomel> AvneeshSingh: we started on may first. here are the minutes. we'll skip the 15th one and have the next 29th. We discussed new metadata and shall we make accessmodesufficient mandatory. We updated the related issues and are waiting for feedbacks on this.
13:54:01 <SueNeu> q+
13:54:17 <SueNeu> ack SueNeu
13:55:03 <ivan> topic: aob
13:55:11 <duga> q+
13:55:24 <ivan> q+
13:55:26 <SueNeu> ack duga
13:55:40 <gautierchomel> q+
13:56:31 <gautierchomel> duga: back to the survey text, is really the issue the right workflow? Shouldn't we make a file, a PR and comment / amend there?
13:56:37 <SueNeu> ack ivan
13:57:39 <shiestyle> q+
13:57:46 <gautierchomel> ivan: yes, PR is the best way.
13:58:35 <gautierchomel> ivan: it's early, but we can start thinking about our face to face meeting in Kobe.
13:58:39 <SueNeu> ack gautierchomel
13:58:45 <shiestyle> Not spec repo but wg repo will be good for text: https://github.com/w3c/pm-wg
13:58:46 <AvneeshSingh> q+
13:58:58 <SueNeu> ack shiestyle
13:59:14 <SueNeu> ack AvneeshSingh
14:00:21 <gautierchomel> AvneeshSingh: Kobe will conflict with daisy board. If we agree with a face to face, i would prefer in the first days of tpac. On monday or tuesday.
14:01:31 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-pmwg-minutes.html ivan
14:01:58 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
14:01:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items