See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.
There was an accepted Pull Request on metadata that generated some questions on whether some extra metadata items (publication and modification dates, mainly) should be labelled as “should” or “may” in the current draft. After some discussions it was decided to keep to the current “should”, to clearly differentiate a publication from “just” a Web Page. It was also discussed that we may revisit this at some point and label this as a “should” only as part of a Packaged WP (which opens up a more general discussion on some metadata becoming more stringent when getting to packaged versions).
Discussion began on what a FPWD would include regarding Packaged Web Publication. It was agreed that, at this point, deciding on a specific packaging format is premature; at this point the Web Packaging work is not yet cast in concrete. Besides, we should stricly separate between PWP as a general concept, that would allow for different types of packaging via some “profiles” (e.g., allowing for a packaging format for EPUB4 but also allowing for a PDF based backaging for other communities). In any case, the FPWD, at this point, would probably only put down the different alternatives rather than deciding on any specific ones.
TPAC is not that far away; planning for the agenda has already begun and participants are encouraged to register asap…