DPUB IG Telco, 2016-08-22: Use cases

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.

Note that, for holiday/vacation reasons the next two meetings will be cancelled.

Use Case Documents update

Section on horizontals

That section is almost ready. The agreement is that the various use cases should get an extra label on which horizontal area(s) they refer to. A simple security related use case will also be added, though a separate top level section on security will also be created.

Distribution and sharing section

The old content underwent a radical edit to align it with the rest of the document. More about on email (the editor of that section was not able to join the call).

Locators

The old section 6 was merged and only one section created. Few use cases were moved into the ‘fundamentals’ (2.1.5, 2.1.6, and also 2.1.13). It was agreed that a more thorough definition of “states” should be added to the section as an introduction, and maybe an explicit reference to the fundamental use cases that are relevant to this area. Also, because this is a fairly technical stuff, it is better if this section moves to a later position in the overall document.

Accessibility

There are now five different areas in the section. The question is really whether there is a need (or not) on a use case on Braille; is it really different on PWP than on the Web in general? This led to a more general discussion: what are the reason that accessibility gets more emphasis in the publication world than elsewhere, and could that be succinctly described in this document? That is still left open for now.

Collections

A few annotation related issues/use cases have been added. Otherwise there was no real progress the past week.

Editing timeline, schedule

The goal is to have a FPWD published for the document before TPAC. The following schedule has been agreed on:

  1. There is a (temporary) feature freeze on the document on the 31st of August. It is important to have the security section and the updated introduction “in” (and anything else that can improve things)
  2. Nick Ruffilo goes through the document on the 1st and 2nd as an overall editorial round in unifying style, terms, etc
  3. Heather takes hold of the document on the 5th of September to finalize an overall editorial round again on style, terms, etc.
  4. Ivan takes hold of the document on the 12th and gets it through the W3C publishing process.

A final version of the document would then be published after TPAC, probably beginning of October.

Posted in Activity News | Comments Off on DPUB IG Telco, 2016-08-22: Use cases

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-08-15: Frankfurt Fair, Use cases

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.

Frankfurt

Karen Myers reported that a group of colleagues are active in a new EU project (FREME) that has relevance to Digital Publishing; that group will have a booth at the Frankfurt Book Fair (October 19-23). They offered the IG to join them on that booth at some point to talk about the work the IG is doing, talk to people, etc. We will have to find out who in the group will be in Frankfurt. To be followed up

Use Case Documents update

Lots happened in the past week on the UCR, the meeting went through and reviewed some of the changes. The important points:

  • There is now an introduction. There were some concerned on the call that it may be a little bit too book centric (as opposed to general publication centric) although the concept of a book as a good introduction to the concepts. Also, a somewhat more “formal” definition of a PWP is needed to make the rest of the work more palatable. These changes will be done by Boris Anthony.
  • Deborah Kaplan reported on some review of the fundamental use cases and, mainly, on the fact that it would be important to have a use case and explicitly mention the “horizontal” dependencies and the importance they have (internationalization, accessibility, security, etc.). At the moment the relevant section is just a start, but it has been agreed that the terms should be made more precise, make it clear that publications, often, have an even more stringent (and possibly context specific) requirement. Ivan Herman accepted to propose some changes.
  • Charles LaPierre reported on the changes he made on the accessibility section. The issue is to avoid repeating issues and use cases that are already listed elsewhere; the group decided to make back links whenever possible instead of repeating things unnecessarily. Charles will take care of that

There are still a number of areas that are not yet in the document but it is known to be worked on by people (who could not be on the call): locators and states, archiving, etc. To be reviewed in a week. It was also agreed that Heather Flanagan and Nick Ruffilo will make a general stylistic review of the text towards the end. The ideal would be to get this published before TPAC…

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-08-08: Annotation, Use cases, TPAC

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.

Annotations

Benjamin Young gave an overview on the status of the Web Annotation specifications (those include a model, vocabulary, and a protocol). The documents are currently in Candidate Recommendation, i.e., testing possible implementations to check whether the recommendations are error-free and consistent.

There were some discussions on the relationships with accessibility, more exactly whether the new specifications have (or not) accessibility implications. The agreement is that the documents themselves, as they do not define user interface or user agent behavior, do not have any accessibility aspect, but it is nevertheless important that implementations would avoid using, e.g., images for annotations (instead of accessible content). That, however, is not under the purview of the current testing period.

Use Case Documents update

There were some evolutions in the document, primarily in the section on manifests. There is a separate branch with a new version; in this version, manifests and packages are separated. The use cases for manifests have been cleaned up, relationships to the fundamental requirements have been added, and two new use cases have been added on how to find a manifest and whether the final manifest should be, possibly, a combination of several ones. The second requirement may lead to specification and implementation complexities, though.

TPAC

The group spent some time on planning the TPAC meeting insofar as finalizing which other groups in wants to meet and on what topics exactly.

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-08-01: TPAC and Use Case Planning

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions.

TPAC

The W3C Technical Plenary (a.k.a. TPAC) meeting is a few weeks away; the groups spent some time on identifying which other Working and/or Interest Groups we would like to meet. At present, the list includes ARIA, CSS, Web Platform, I18N, SVG; others may come up in the coming weeks. The group also had some discussion on setting up the agenda for the IG’s Face-to-Face meeting.

Use Case Document planning

To move the Use Case document forward, the group has assigned a number of sections in the document to specific persons for further editing. (See the meeting agenda for details.) The idea is to have a publishable use case document by TPAC, possibly even before…

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-07-11: Use Cases on Manifest and Metadata

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. Part of the “minutes” took place on a Google Document that was live-edited collectively.

DPUB IG Discussion on Manifests and Metadata

The group focused on the section Manifests and Metadata. The group dicussed the importance of User Agents being able to know metadata about package, its components, and their relationships.

Hiatus for the Remainder of July

The DPUB IG will be on hiatus for the remainder of the month of July. We will meet again on 1 August. Enjoy your time away.

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-06-27: Use Cases Document, joint meeting with IDPF EPUB3.1 WG BFF Task Force

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. Part of the “minutes” took place on a Google Document that was live-edited collectively. See also the minutes of the separate meeting with the IDPF EPUB3.1 WG.

DPUB IG Discussion on Use Cases Document

The meeting was entirely concentrating on the refinement of the Use Case and Requirement Document. The goal was twofold:

  • Find a common structure for use cases. The structure of the [Annotation Use Cases[(https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-annotation-uc/#tagging-a-publication) document may be the pattern to follow
  • Continue “filling in” some of the use cases that, at the moment, are only a one-sentence entry in the document. After discussion it was agreed that the “fundamental” issues on why several files are used, why there is a need for an extra information on the logical sequence of document, for a separate description of the content of a publication, of for the list of “essential” resources, etc.

The next meeting on the 4th of July will be cancelled, but that is followed, on the 7th of July, by another virtual F2F where further live editing should occur.

Separate meeting with the IDPF EPUB3.1 Working Group’s BFF Task Force

The current meeting was preceded by an ad-hoc meeting between the DPUB IG and the IDPF EPUB3.1 Working Group’s BFF Task Force. The latter is looking at what it would mean if an EPUB3 document was “exploded” on the Web and interpreted directly, how to make that option more palatable to browsers, authors, etc. There is a GitHub repository reflecting the current stage of discussions, concentrating on re-thinking the manifest for such an exploded EPUB3, as well as the usage of the various auxiliary files. Obviously, there is a lot of commonalities with the PWP goals and ideas.

The meeting concentrated on presenting the work so far, essentially around manifests, to participants. It was agreed that further meetings will be necessary, and that, eventually, the work should be merged into one to avoid duplication. This also means that the DPUB IG’s UCR document should also be critically assessed from the point of view of BFF in the future.

Posted in Activity News, Meeting reports | Comments Off on DPUB IG Telco, 2016-06-27: Use Cases Document, joint meeting with IDPF EPUB3.1 WG BFF Task Force

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-06-20: CSS WG, Use Cases Document

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)

Bridging with the CSS WG

This was a continuation of the discussion from last week on how to bridge with the CSS WG better. What was agreed is that there should be more active contacts with (a) reading system developers who hit the major issues themselves and are major part of the ecosystem and (b) with technical people in e-publication production who may hit issues that they have to circumvent with special code (possibly polyfills). It would also be important to find out how the features defined in XSL-FO are currently used in publishing and what difficulties are hit when those are mapped onto CSS. Two actions are planned

  1. organize a meeting with the major Reading System developers, like Google Play, iBooks, Readium, AER.IO, Bluefire, etc, to collect their input
  2. set up a (wiki) page to collect the XSL-FO experiences (eg, from Antenna House, Prince, etc) that should be mapped on CSS and what difficulties they hit

It was emphasized that real business cases are needed; an experimental implementation in a not-widely-used platform will not be convincing enough for browser manufacturers…

Use Cases’ Document Structure and Editing

The discussion (also in preparation to the upcoming Virtual F2F) was mainly on how to structure the current use case document. The example of the use cases of the archival task force was mentioned, although it was felt that the structure in that document is a little bit too complex (and also related to some sort of a workflow), so it should be somewhere in between. Also, some real “story” should be added around the individual use cases, which are often just a one sentence. It was therefore agreed that, for example in section 2.7 of the document we should all add a story around 1-2 case, and then organize the document accordingly.

What are also missing for a proper organization are

  • succinct definitions of the requirements that are referred to from the use cases
  • prioritization of the requirements

It was also noted that some requirements are mutually contradictory; these should be at least called out and, possibly, discussed and decided upon. (Part of this may be the subject of the Virtual F2F.)

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-06-13: CSS WG, priorities

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)

CSS F2F meeting report

Dave Cramer gave a report of the recent CSS WG F2F meeting, that took place in San Francisco. The main point of interest for this group are:

  • Flexbox and grid. Both of these have evolved significantly. Flexbox is now in CR and grids has also evolved a lot.
  • Alt text in generated content. Generated content has been picked up again, and it will include the possibility to add “alt” text to it. Although this is still a complex issue, the goal is to improve the accessibility aspects of generated content
  • Discussions on baseline grids, to control alignment of stuff across pages and columns. This, and another feature called hanging punctuation. Both are important for, eg, CJK languages.

CSS Priorities’ document

There is a document on CSS priorities that the group has started to edit. The goal was to come up with a wish-list of things the publication community would like to be able to do but cannot do. However, it is fairly difficult to get these points onto the CSS WG’s agenda, and a simple listing of priorities will not really cut it. The problem is that the browser developers will see this as a theoretical thing, and dismiss it, unless there is someone who is trying to build something but coming up with a roadblock. What really counts and makes people think and move is people come not only with wishes, but some sort of implementations – polyfills or not – is how groups like CSS operate.

There were some discussion on the call on, e.g., how to “use” and cooperate with the Readium consortium, how to get more input, etc; the discussion will continue on subsequent calls.

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-06-06: Use case document & manifests

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)

Use cases on manifests

Most of the meeting was on use cases to be gathered/documented on manifests. One of the most important issue, at that point, what the manifest is for an area like publishing. Is it a resource to be used for packaging only, or is it to be used independently on whether the publication is packed or not. (The consensus shifts towards the latter.) What is (is there?) a difference between the information in a manifest and what is commonly referred to as metadata?

The basic use case for manifests is to define what are the resources that are part of the publication. Then the discussion ended up listing a number of “information” that must be available about a publication; some of these are:

  • information on the media type of those resources (can a RS handle them), about their size (does the RS have enough memory for it)
  • reading order of the resources (at least a default reading order)
  • need to know whether the rendering is offline or online
  • need to have basic metadata, like the name and the cover image of the publication itself
  • need to have access to the resource “efficiently”, i.e., without the need to complex processing of the resource
  • need to know the rights associated to resources (is it all right to download a font)
  • need to know if there are extraneous files in the publication and what to do about that
  • need to have information on whether the resources are unaltered, whether they can be altered and under what circumstances, about the origin of the resources

etc. (The URC document’s commit right after the call has a record of that list.)

This discussion is of course ongoing. Actually, a new “virtual F2F” meeting may be organized to flesh many of the details out.

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-05-23: W3C/IDPF Plans, Web Platform WG

See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)

IDPF/W3C Plans

There was an announcement on the exploration of W3C and IDPF joining forces; this was discussed a bit on the call. Nick reported on a mailing list discussion, and the main question there was what the impact would be on publishing. There were some concerns around the messaging, on how these things have been decided, etc. Karen also reported on an article on CNET.

Ivan raised the issue that the current messaging does not emphasize enough the importance of the use case document that the IG is planning, and also emphasizing that the current PWP document is not necessarily a done deal as it is; the use case evolution may modify it greatly. Finally, Dave raised the issue that there were many discussions leading up to the announcement that was done in closed fora, and the final decision process should be made more in the public. The group also wondered about the possibility for further public discussions around this, including a possible Webinar.

Web Platform WG topics

Charles McCathieNeville (“chaals”), co-chair of the Web Platform WG at W3C, was the guest of the call to discuss some areas of common interest.

Packaging/Manifests

There is a work item in the WPWG on packaging but, at this moment, there are no real takers. Packaging is obviously of interest for the publishing community, and the question arose whether this community wants to push the current approach. The fact is that most browsers have an extension that uses zip and a manifest; i.e., that approach would get some traction, as opposed to the current proposal.

During the discussion it came to the fore that publishers currently use zip+manifest, although the current formats for manifests, as well as the specificities on zip usage, are not very Web friendly. But there is already work going on (in the IDPF EPUB WG) to update the manifest, a JSON approach, which is the current line at W3C (see the Web App Manifest, is probably o.k. for the Publishing Industry on long term. That being said, it is not clear how the current Web App Manifest can be extended for a particular community.

It has been agreed that the DPUB IG would submit issues or comments on the manifest as well as the packaging work to make its position clear.

Service Workers

The current work on PWP relies on concepts that calls for a tool like Service Workers. Dave has already experimented with this, but questions arose about the longevity of the Service Worker spec, and whether it is really something the community can rely on. It seems that Service Workers are indeed here to say, although the first implementations will probably not be optimal. But it is a safe bet to use them. (See also caniuse entries on it: Mozilla and Chrome already ship it, Microsoft has expressed interest. Not clear about Safari.)

HTML Extensions, Custom Elements (eg, the element)

Lately there were lots of discussion on the re-introduction of the element, that would certainly be of interest for the Publishing Community. What is needed today is to have clear usage data through an implementation. It was emphasized that “implementation” does not necessarily mean one of the browsers; if an EPUB reading system implemented it and used it, this would constitute a good proof of usage.

On a more general level, the issue of HTML Extensions, in particular Custom Elements, came to the fore, as well as the general approach for extensions. For Custom Elements, although it is only supported in Chrome/Opera at this point, the plan is to go ahead and others will also implement it; more generally, the approach using discussions in the HTML Incubator was emphasized as a means to bring new features into HTML.

It was agreed to have these types of meetings with the WPWG more often…