See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
There has been some discussion at the F2F of Toronto whether this group should deal with a new version of
epub:type. Based on that discussion plus some further discussion on the call, the group adopted a resolution, whereby:
Since there are no implementations of
epub:typeother than internal workflows (beyond those [e.g.,
footnote] with solid ARIA mappings), do not move forward with broad replacements for
There were lots of discussion on the term “affordances”, ie, whether the term is right, whether it is understandable, and whether the way it is presented in the current draft (i.e., a separate section on affordances) is the cleanest way forward. After these discussion the following approach has been adopted:
- The individual affordances should be merged with the general description of information set, each infoset item should list the features it “affords”, linking back to the UCR document
- No new examples/use cases should come to the WP draft; instead, the UCR document should be refreshed and updated.
The question of what term to use for TOC came up. While
tableOfContents was proposed, the issue on whether a TOC is necessary as a separate item in the first place in the manifest came up. Two discussion points:
- If there is an entry in the manifest, it has to be one of the resources, not a separate term with its own structure.
- Maybe we do not even need anything if we just rely on the ToC in the entry page.