See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
The group handled some open issues:
- Usage of fragment IDs and repeated URLs: the group agreed that
- Fragment identifiers can be used without further ado in the manifest (it was, formerly, disallowed)
- While it is recommended not to repeat URL-s for resources in
resources, it is not explicitly disallowed any more
- Choosing alternatives: at the moment the document is silent on how the User Agent should choose among several alternatives for a linked resource, if available. It was agreed that this should remain the case for now, future releases, as well as specific documents (including profiles) may add their own rules (e.g., for synchronized media). Future versions of the spec may have a more general mechanism
- Resolving URL prefixes in the manifest: it is possible, in JSON-LD, to add prefixes to the context, and uses that in the form of a CURIE for terms. This is one of the extension mechanism in the publication manifest. The question was whether the simple handling of the manifest (i.e., without a JSON-LD processor) should resolve such prefixes and, as an additional issue, whether the context should include a number of predefined prefixes. The group agreed not to do any of these.
- Cover description: is it always recommended?: this discussion touched upon the role of the
descriptionvalue, with its relationship to an alternate description of an image in HTML. It was agreed that this issue is way too complex for this group as it touches upon the interpretation of WCAG and possibly adding a technique to it. It is not a rule that can be added normatively in the document.
With these handled, it looks like the document is getting to a closure, and will be ready for CR. The group also discussed actions needed towards a Candidate Recommendation transition.