See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
The main underlying goal of the meeting was to consolidate a number of discussion that took place in past few weeks on manifest, so that the Editor’s draft for the Web Publication document could be updated (this will be done under the leadership of the chief editor, Matt Garrish).
A draft document has been prepared to list the minimum items that should be present in a manifest. That document makes a different between an abstract and a concrete manifest, and lists items into the abstract manifest that reflect current (minimum) consensus. A number of open issues reflect the lack of consensus, for the moment, on whether certain items should be “must” vs. “should”; these issues are explicitly listed in the document.
Some items did come up during the discussion, and the result will be reflected in the consolidated editor’s draft
- there should be an item on the necessity (“should”) of including an identifier
- it should be “a” reading order, not “default”
- there should be a new issue on whether language reference is a “should” or a “must” (and the issue should be referred from the document)
There was an open issue on whether this (and the other) documents should use the term URL or URI/IRI. Although IRI is more precise and reflects the current RFC-s, the practice of the Web Developers’ community is to stick with the term URL (and possibly make it clear that, syntactically and semantically these include IRI-s). It has been accepted to follow this practice, referring to the HTML5 specification.
A new Pull Request on further terminologies on addresses and identifiers has also been submitted. This will also be incorporated into the editor’s draft.