13:12:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pmwg
13:12:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/27-pmwg-irc
13:12:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:12:48 <Zakim> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group
13:13:18 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Details 2025-11-27: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2025Nov/0033.html
13:13:19 <ivan> Chair: wendy
13:13:19 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Maintenance Working Group Telco
13:13:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pm-wg/2025Nov/0033.html
13:13:20 <ivan> regrets+ toshiakikoike, duga, charlesl, masakazukitahara
13:53:40 <gautierchomel> gautierchomel has joined #pmwg
13:58:42 <shiestyle> shiestyle has joined #pmwg
13:58:57 <ivan> present+
13:59:56 <ivan> present+ gautierchomel
14:00:02 <shiestyle> present+
14:00:05 <ivan> present+ shiestyle
14:00:15 <ivan> present+ avneesh
14:00:20 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pmwg
14:00:23 <ivan> present+ wendyreid
14:00:32 <ivan> present+ magnus
14:00:40 <AvneeshSingh> AvneeshSingh has joined #pmwg
14:01:19 <AvneeshSingh> present+
14:02:54 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pmwg
14:03:08 <ivan> present+ mgarrish
14:04:17 <mgarrish> scribe+
14:04:31 <wendyreid> Topic: Overview of TPAC
14:04:54 <ivan> present+ elizabeth
14:04:56 <Hadrien> Hadrien has joined #pmwg
14:05:06 <Elizabeth> Elizabeth has joined #pmwg
14:05:07 <Hadrien> present+
14:05:23 <mgarrish> wendyreid: we had really good sessions on annotations and a lot of the ground work is done so now we need to start a draft proposal
14:05:41 <mgarrish> ... expect to see that in the next few weeks
14:05:55 <mgarrish> ... a lot of time was spent on fixed layouts and comics
14:06:11 <ivan> present+ laurentlm
14:06:13 <mgarrish> ... made good progress on what to do with the problematic rendition fxl properties
14:06:29 <mgarrish> ... we are not going to add the html syntax - I am working on a blog post on this
14:06:46 <mgarrish> ... we're still working on what to do about submissions to iso
14:06:55 <mgarrish> ... got an update on Japanese publishing
14:07:26 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pmwg
14:07:31 <ivan> q+
14:07:38 <gpellegrino> present+
14:07:38 <ivan> present+ gpellegrino
14:07:43 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:07:55 <mgarrish> ... we have some info on the iso transition but the issue is the european commission and iso coordination
14:08:32 <mgarrish> ivan: I had some disagreement about submission at the meeting but it seems that iso requires a document to be done as iso
14:08:50 <mgarrish> ... the wcag group tried to convince them that this is not useful to do for wcag and iso accepted it
14:09:09 <mgarrish> ... iso accepted their argument and wcag was submitted
14:09:20 <mgarrish> ... I have asked for the argument on how to make this case for epub
14:09:47 <mgarrish> ivan: we also discussed images in the spine at tpac
14:10:01 <mgarrish> wendyreid: we intend to leave the spec requirements for this as they are
14:10:24 <wendyreid> Topic: Parallel Content - https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/discussions/2829
14:11:05 <mgarrish> wendyreid: we've had use cases for multiple versions of the content and tried to solve with multiple renditions
14:11:23 <mgarrish> ... parallel content is where there are two or more parts that appear in conjunction with each other
14:12:01 <mgarrish> ... content in translation is an example where you might have a poem in two different languages on facing pages so you can review each line in each language
14:12:19 <mgarrish> ... it also comes up in accessibility issues
14:12:46 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: currently there are different problematics like translated content, fixed and reflow, audio and text
14:12:57 <wendyreid> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/HohO22uS/
14:13:09 <mgarrish> ... up until now there have been separate discussions and proposals for each but we should try to find one way for all
14:13:24 <mgarrish> ... I don't have a preferred option for how to address this technically
14:13:26 <ivan> q+
14:13:31 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:14:01 <mgarrish> ivan: it is an important use case and multiple renditions covers at least some of it
14:14:02 <Hadrien> q+
14:14:31 <mgarrish> ... we don't have a technical solution yet so this group probably can't do it - it likely needs to be incubated in the community group
14:14:51 <mgarrish> ... I expect the solution will be complicated and needs incubation to figure out what will work
14:14:57 <wendyreid> ack Hadr
14:15:44 <ivan> present+ makoto
14:15:49 <mgarrish> Hadrien: multiple renditions does have a mapping document to jump between the renditions - it's a lot like a navigation document
14:16:14 <MURATA> MURATA has joined #pmwg
14:16:22 <mgarrish> ... we need to be careful not to force everything together if they don't work well together
14:17:14 <mgarrish> ... I think if we modify multiple renditions we could do some interesting use cases like magazines with fixed and reflowable layouts
14:17:36 <mgarrish> ... we shouldn't reject all of multiple renditions but I agree we do need to look into it more
14:17:44 <wendyreid> q+
14:17:52 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
14:17:55 <mgarrish> ... the way multiple renditions was defined was not ideal
14:18:13 <mgarrish> wendyreid: I agree we have incubation - we have bits and pieces of what we need
14:18:20 <mgarrish> s/we have/we need/
14:19:17 <mgarrish> ... if I'm reading a book where one page is one language and another in another language you wouldn't want two separate documents but we don't have multiple reading orders
14:19:17 <Hadrien> q+
14:19:36 <mgarrish> ... same is true for audio where the transcript might be in the same file
14:19:52 <mgarrish> ... but reflow and fxl probably are always going to require separate documents
14:19:56 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:20:46 <mgarrish> Hadrien: I think another option for multiple reading orders than multiple renditions and all it entails - a separate publication - we also have collections for alternate reading order
14:21:02 <mgarrish> ... we wouldn't need to introduce anything new - is worth exploring
14:21:07 <MURATA> Unfortunately, multiple renditions were never really used.  Right?
14:21:41 <mgarrish> ... I had this in mind at tpac but we didn't have time to discuss - once we're done with comics I'd like to explore it
14:21:59 <mgarrish> ... we should consider a task force since we're in a revision cycle right now
14:21:59 <ivan> q+
14:22:02 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:22:40 <mgarrish> ivan: I have practical problems, namely whatever we do if we want to put it in the epub standard we need two implementations
14:23:14 <mgarrish> ... I get that it's not multiple renditions and it has not been picked up - that's why we took it out and made it a note
14:23:21 <MURATA> If my memory is correct, I think that it is too difficult to use multiple publication documents per zip file.
14:23:37 <mgarrish> ... I'm worried about putting something into the standard again before we know that there will be adoption
14:23:38 <wendyreid> q+
14:23:43 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
14:24:02 <Hadrien> q+
14:24:23 <gpellegrino> q+
14:24:24 <mgarrish> wendyreid: if we are to undertake this a big question is what stopped adoption of multiple renditions - there are some implementations but they are really platform base
14:24:29 <LaurentLM> LaurentLM has joined #pmwg
14:24:34 <LaurentLM> present+
14:24:41 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:24:42 <mgarrish> ... I have a feeling I know why - people didn't know what to do with what we gave them
14:24:58 <shiestyle> q+
14:25:06 <mgarrish> Hadrien: what if we create a task force that does not attempt to introduce new things in the spec
14:25:33 <mgarrish> ... based on the result of that task force we see whether there is any interest and then decide where to go
14:25:33 <ivan> q+
14:25:48 <mgarrish> ... if that fails then we can move it over to the CG to look into further
14:25:54 <wendyreid> ack gpellegrino
14:26:29 <wendyreid> ack shiestyle
14:26:31 <mgarrish> gpellegrino: we shouldn't work in the past but whether it is needed now - EAA is requiring publishers to now produce both fxl and reflow in the same package
14:26:48 <Hadrien> q+
14:26:55 <mgarrish> shiestyle: I wonder if there is enough interest or demand for this - I think it needs more incubation
14:26:57 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:28:01 <gautierchomel> q+
14:28:04 <mgarrish> ivan: the working group is getting thin and we have existing task forces with a lot of work to do - we should be getting to CR within half a year - so I'm worried about this taking more time away from the revision
14:28:06 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:28:35 <mgarrish> Hadrien: there is demand for textbooks and it is common for magazines - they are lacking the format to do it
14:28:55 <mgarrish> ... there is scale now that didn't exist when we did multiple renditions
14:29:15 <mgarrish> ... the interest is specialized though
14:29:43 <mgarrish> ... and I agree with Ivan that we shouldn't do too many things at the same time - there is still work for comics but not as much as for annotations
14:30:15 <mgarrish> ... I can't see doing both in parallel but if we can close comics soon and we get interest in this from other participants then we should at least explore what we can do
14:30:25 <ivan> +1 to Hadrien
14:30:43 <mgarrish> ... and if we can't add anything to the spec than it still leaves people with some ideas to work on
14:30:49 <wendyreid> ack gautierchomel
14:31:45 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: scholarly publishing does do multiple renditions but in a closed environment - they need to provide interoperable content
14:32:10 <mgarrish> ... I understand the time and resource issues but this problem has been around for a long time and should be a priority to finally address
14:32:38 <mgarrish> ... other solutions are being implemented and it makes it harder to standardize
14:33:19 <mgarrish> wendyreid: we need to do some outreach to find out who is interested before we get to a task force
14:33:20 <gautierchomel> q+
14:33:47 <wendyreid> ack gautierchomel
14:33:47 <mgarrish> ... it's easy to start a task force but we don't want to find out later that the work won't be implemented
14:34:14 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: I think it would be good to have this in the CG because we have more people with interest in this area
14:34:33 <AvneeshSingh> +1, anyone can join CG
14:34:43 <Hadrien> q+
14:34:48 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:35:10 <mgarrish> Hadrien: we also have interest in EDRLab but they are not represented in this group
14:35:38 <mgarrish> wendyreid: for a next step we should start the conversation in the CG
14:35:55 <mgarrish> ... nothing stops us from promoting the work into the WG later
14:36:17 <gautierchomel> q+
14:36:28 <wendyreid> ack gautierchomel
14:36:30 <mgarrish> ... doesn't require more work from this group to get it started
14:36:47 <mgarrish> gautierchomel; I can try by mid-January to have a call in the CG to start a task force
14:36:58 <ivan> s/;/:/
14:37:22 <ivan> q+ to add sg to the agenda
14:37:26 <wendyreid> Topic: Scheduling - https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/discussions/2834
14:37:28 <mgarrish> wendyreid: only other thing is meeting scheduling
14:37:33 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:37:33 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to add sg to the agenda
14:38:24 <mgarrish> ... I've already seen some responses, but we had a question about our meeting scheduling because our one time slot is not ideal for the west coast of US, too early, or too late for those in Japan
14:38:47 <mgarrish> ... wanted to find out if we could go back to a rotating schedule
14:38:52 <ivan> q+
14:39:00 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:39:08 <AvneeshSingh> q+
14:39:08 <mgarrish> ... no interest so far in starting even earlier but nothing negative about a rotating meeting time
14:39:42 <mgarrish> ivan: I've done the rotating schedule here and in other groups and it never works well - it divides the community
14:39:57 <mgarrish> ... it's always been abandoned after a while
14:40:02 <wendyreid> ack AvneeshSingh
14:40:30 <mgarrish> AvneeshSingh: do we have enough agenda items to fill up four or five meetings a month or should we consider dropping the schedule from every week
14:41:01 <mgarrish> wendyreid: if you haven't had a chance to respond please think about it and add a comment
14:41:09 <ivan> Topic: test suite changes - https://github.com/w3c/epub-tests/pull/309
14:41:31 <mgarrish> ivan: I made some changes to the test suite after the tpac meeting because we deprecated a property
14:41:35 <Hadrien> q+
14:41:53 <mgarrish> ... (I still need a full list of what we'll deprecated, as an aside)
14:42:32 <mgarrish> ... there is a pull request for the tests to separate the tests that are deprecated - new labelling like required vs. recommended
14:43:04 <mgarrish> ... the other thing is more controversial - if someone currently creates a test they are expected to create a new zipped epub file
14:43:22 <mgarrish> ... this forces the tester to test the book they've created
14:43:38 <mgarrish> ... but this has become a pain when you need to go back and make minor changes to existing tests
14:44:01 <mgarrish> ... the PR adds a github action to auto-generate all the epubs
14:44:01 <gautierchomel> q+
14:44:10 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:44:17 <mgarrish> ... is this okay or should we keep people generating the epubs manually?
14:44:45 <mgarrish> Hadrien: I will get back to you soon about the other properties to deprecate
14:45:21 <wendyreid> ack gautierchomel
14:45:59 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: if all the epub files are updated then you lose some information about when they were last changed
14:46:17 <mgarrish> ivan: yes, but the metadata in the epub file will still be the same about the last modification date
14:46:32 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: might be a problem for sorting, but not sure how big
14:46:54 <mgarrish> ivan: for reporting the date of the packaged epub is not used
14:47:03 <mgarrish> ... only the unpacked files are used
14:47:28 <mgarrish> wendyreid: the last modification date only changes if you actually modify the test
14:48:06 <mgarrish> ivan: if you have a lot of tests to work on then generating each one becomes a pain to do
14:48:54 <mgarrish> ... I considered adding epubcheck validation but I'm not sure how to do that
14:49:11 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: I can send you an example of how to call it into your workflow
14:49:35 <mgarrish> wendyreid: could have epubcheck as an action
14:49:53 <mgarrish> ivan: but a lot of tests that epubcheck would have to be started up and run on
14:50:08 <mgarrish> ... is it okay if I merge as it is now?
14:50:11 <mgarrish> wendyreid: yes
14:50:14 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: yes
14:50:20 <gautierchomel> q+
14:50:24 <wendyreid> Topic: AOB
14:50:27 <wendyreid> ack gau
14:50:52 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: I have questions about ways to infer metadata
14:51:16 <mgarrish> ... people are starting to update their epubs and that comes with a lot of AI generated content
14:51:38 <gautierchomel> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/discussions/2830
14:51:43 <mgarrish> ... if we cannot differentiate what has been auto-answered it will become problematic
14:51:43 <Hadrien> q+
14:52:15 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:52:40 <mgarrish> Hadrien: I raised this during tpac - there could be legal reasons for identifying what is AI generated
14:52:46 <ivan> q+
14:53:02 <mgarrish> ... might not be in our scope to do this for html
14:53:16 <mgarrish> ... if there is work going on in this area it would be helpful to know where
14:53:20 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:53:22 <wendyreid> q+
14:53:47 <mgarrish> ivan: w3c is still trying to find out what can be done about AI - there is a new interest group but not answer at this time
14:54:01 <mgarrish> ... even if we are talking metadata this is not just an epub issue
14:54:15 <mgarrish> ... coming up with our own metadata in isolation is not a good idea
14:54:27 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
14:54:58 <mgarrish> wendyreid: we might be overthinking the question - this is only epub metadata and what is generated automatically
14:55:19 <Hadrien> https://w3c.github.io/pm-wg/minutes/2025-11-11-f2f.html#2ee0
14:55:26 <mgarrish> ... how can you tell if a book contains AI-generated metadata
14:56:00 <mgarrish> ... could we use something like the refines attribute to make statements about resources
14:56:29 <mgarrish> ... all we are doing is putting an asterisk on resouce essentially
14:56:37 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/2833
14:56:56 <Hadrien> q+
14:57:01 <wendyreid> ack Hadrien
14:57:33 <ivan> s/AOB/Ways to identify inferred metadata/
14:57:48 <mgarrish> Hadrien: I think ivan's point still stands that we don't have the metadata to say anything - we're lacking the vocabulary and it's not in our scope to define that
14:58:10 <mgarrish> ... could be schema.org or dublin core or someone else to define the metadata
14:59:11 <mgarrish> wendyreid: if I have a million epubs in my database and some are quite old and I want to add accessibility metadata then I can try to infer things like whether they support some textual reading
14:59:35 <mgarrish> ... but there should be a way to say that this metadata was automated so it is not compeletely trustworthy
14:59:57 <mgarrish> gautierchomel: the problem is bigger, but yes, that is what we need to capture first
15:01:09 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/27-pmwg-minutes.html ivan
15:02:20 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:02:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items