See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
The current text in the editor’s copy is grossly outdated. It originates in the discussion last spring, before the major reorganization of the IG’s thoughts in September. It needs change.
Although the alternative of removing it altogether came up, it was finally agreed that this section should stay, albeit renewed. The discussion thread that happened on the mailing list (e.g., thread on locators) contains a lot of valuable thoughts that should be incorporated into the document. Furthermore, Dave Cramer also jotted down a set of more general thoughts that are related to the subject, and that should not be lost either.
It was therefore decided to redo that section summarizing those discussions. First results should be expected next week.
The term “WP Processor”
As a side track of the discussion the usage of a “(P)WP Processor” came up and it was questioned whether that term was really necessary as opposed to simply use “User Agent”. After a brief discussion it was agreed to remove that term from the document.
There has been a renewed interest on Web Packaging lately (see the “explainer” in GitHub). The question is whether it fundamentally affects the work around WP. The (temporary) consensus it that the exact packaging format is not really of importance for a possible specification; profiles can fix one or the other. However, the work on Web Packaging highlighted the issue about package signing which may be of importance for a WP-related security model in the future. (Although it is probable that the same approach could be used with ZIP-based packaging formats, too, i.e., this is not dependent on the Web Packaging format.)
A separate dpub category has been set up. The downside, however, is that in the current discourse set-up it may not be possible to set a submission into several categories. That may be a problem insofar as it would isolate the dpub related discussions. To be explored further…