Meeting minutes of the Publishing Business Group have been published

The Publishing Business Group has had a F2F meeting on the 13th of March, and also had its first teleconference yesterday. The minutes of both meetings are now public:

The discussions, on both meetings, concentrated mostly on the development of the Publishing Working Group (draft) charter.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-03-20: Final issues on charter, timeline, F2F

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

EPUB Summit, PBG F2F

Garth reported on the EPUB Summit 2017, which was a very successful event, with more participants than last year. Lots of presentations on the usage of EPUB, on Readium LCP. Laurent Le Meurs posted a summary.

This was followed by a Publishing BG F2F in London (the minutes of the meeting are also available); that meeting took care of most of the issues in the WG charter. (See full issue list). B.t.w., the WG’s name has been changed to “Publishing WG”.

There was also a discussion on the future of this Interest Group. The feeling is that it will wind down when its charter expires (October 2017), and the work will migrate to the Working Group. The only work in this IG that must continue and has not yet been decided upon is the work on Latinreq; it has been agreed to add this as a possible WG Note output of the Working Group.


The group also discussed the timeline of deliverables that must be added to the charter. There has been a proposal before the IG call and that seemed to be reasonable; it is what is in the charter draft now.

Planned WG F2F Dates and place

With the shift in chartering the original schedule for a F2F early June is not possible. The current target dates are June 22-23, either in NYC or Paris. A poll will be set up to see what the preferences are in the group.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-03-06: A11y and ARIA in the charter, document publishing

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

A11y text in the charter

The text on accessibility in the draft charter was discussed. Avneesh Singh and Deborah Kaplan presented the proposal of the accessibility task force. After some discussion it was agreed that the new text will be added to a separate branch in the charter text, and the decision on whether that change is fine or not will be taken during the week on email.

(Right after the meeting the changes were done, see the separate mail on the details.)

How to handle the ARIA work

The charter draft includes some activities on the development of a DPUB ARAI 2.0, and the question is whether this would be a joined deliverable with the ARIA WG or whether the DPUB WG would do it alone. After some discussion the agreement is the latter.

Document Publishing

The decision is to publish the PWP and the UCR drafts at W3C. This should happen on Thursday, 9th of March.

Possible WG F2F

The discussion about the F2F is still ongoing: there has to be an 8 weeks’ notice in the charter and this would require that the charter is officially on the AC’s desk for voting before the 10th of April. It is unclear whether this is possible; the agreement is that in two weeks the IG takes a final decision whether the meeting dates in NYC should be held, or whether the F2F should be postponed to the end of June.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-02-27: Publishing BG, Charter, document publishing

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

The meeting began by the welcoming of new members of the group: Nick Brown (Ingram/VitalSource) and Jonathan Hevenstone (Wiley/Atypon)

Publishing BG

Bill McCoy gave some updates of the Publishing Business Group. The group is official, people are gathering. There will be a F2F meeting in London on March 13th. The BG has now chosen its three co-chairs: Paul Belfanti, Rick Johnson, and Cristina Mussinelli

The BG should take a leading role in the formulation of the charter.

Remaining technical issues in the charter

  • The online/offline formulation: it has been agreed to go with the text currently in the charter document.
  • Manifest issue: the fear was that the current text could be understood as if all constituent resources were to be listed as part of ordering (which isn’t true). A text was proposed to amend that, and this will be put into the charter text.
  • API-s in the charter: the current charter includes references to two API-s that should be developed. There is a fear that this could dilute the Working Group and the ideas need incubation. The decision was to remove this from the charter


It has been decided to produce a new version of the charter; the only thing remaining to be discussed on the IG level is the changes related to accessibility (t.b.d. next week). The PWP draft and the UCR documents should also be brought to a publication ready level. This has to be done the coming week.

Possible WG F2F

The current consensus continues to be to hold a F2F meeting in New York, on the 5th and 6th of June. This will be after BEA.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-02-13: A11y task force, PWP issues, Misc planning

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

Accessibility Task Force

Based on last week’s agreement, the A11Y TF has started to draft a text that may end up in the charter. There are two different issues:

  1. Text in the charter related to the overall deliverables
  2. Whether there should be a separate deliverable on some sort of a WCAG adjunct or addition.

The first item is in the making and under discussion; the second will also be a subject of discussion with the relevant WG

PWP Issues

Some pending discussion issues were settled, relevant to the PWP draft. These are:

  • Online/offline: the exact formulation on how offline vs. online is described. Although everyone agreed that offline capabilities are “very very SHOULD”, there was some reticence of saying MUST. It was agreed that the PWP draft (as well as the charter) may be a bit more verbose in describing the wishes, the exact “spec-talk” wording will have to be discussed in the Working Group
  • Manifest details: the wording in the current text has been deemed to be to restrictive insofar as it suggested that a manifest must provide, eg, ordering for all resources (which is not the case). A different wording has been agreed.

The editorial changes will be proposed in the repo during the week.


Future publications

It has been agreed that, once the aforementioned changes will happen in the PWP draft, publishing a new version will be timely for both the UCR and the PWP drafts.

Possible WG F2F

The current consensus is to hold a F2F meeting in New York, on the 5th and 6th of June. This will be after BEA, i.e., many people may be in NYC anyway.

Adobe is considering hosting the meeting.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-02-06: A11y and the charter, Groups’ chartering

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

Pub Groups’ chartering

There were an overall satisfaction on the IDPF/W3C merge. The group discussed the chartering process of the various groups that will be formed (BT, WG, CG). It is urgent to set up a Business Group to contribute that WG chartering process (this IG has already a rough consensus on the direction to take). There will be a BG kickoff meeting in London mid March.

The question on whether the IG will stay after the WG is formed came up; at this moment, this is undecided. On the one hand, there may be some topics (a11y related, CSS relationships) that may make sense in an IG but, on the other hand, the realities on manpower availability may make it difficult to maintain two separate groups. It has been agreed that this issue can be decided later. In general, the goal of the WG is to concentrate on Recommendation track work (e.g., DPUB ARIA).

Accessibility and the WG

A particular issue is: what Accessibility related work should be done in the Working Group. At the moment, publishing requirements are in scope of the WCAG work at the WCAG Working Group, but it is not clear what the priority of this work it. On the other hand, the publishing community has two major input documents that hint at further recommendation track work: the “Digital Publishing and Accessibility in W3C Documents” and the “EPUB Accessibility 1.0”, and the goal is to find a “home” for this work to continue.

Two actions have been accepted:

  1. a proposal will be developed by the accessibility experts on what should become part of a charter in terms of accessibility work
  2. (once that proposal is available) a meeting should be set up with the WCAG WG representatives to decide how that work should be done and, possibly, divided among the groups.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-01-30: Technical PWP issues

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

Call for testimonials on the IDPF/W3C combination

The two organizations are close to sign the deal, which will be accompanies by a Press Release. Testimonials are welcome, see testimonial guidelines for further information.

PWP Issues — Definition of a PWP

One discussion point that came up is what terminology to be used for the definition of a PWP. The the current text says “A Web Publication (WP) is a bounded collection of resources, envisioned and created as a whole, that can be presented using Open Web Platform technologies.” However, some issues came up around this definition; see the mailing list thread on this. After discussion, the agreement on the call was to reuse, instead, the terminology section, with a slight modification on its relation of presentation. A change proposal on the draft will be made on GitHub soon.

PWP Issues — Relationship to Accessibility

The current text (in the same section) also makes the statement “A Web Publication must be accessible to the broadest possible range of readers.”. Although there was a general agreement on the general goal, the text sounded too restrictive insofar as using a “must” under all circumstances (see again the aforementioned thread). The discussion lead to an agreement, whereby the approach is that all technologies used for WP must allow for accessibility features, but we cannot make a statement whereby each publication MUST be accessible. Again, a change proposal on the draft will made on GitHub in the coming days.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-01-23: DPUB WG Charter, PWP locators, Misc.

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

DPUB WG Charter discussion

There has been some changes on the charter:

  • The Goals and Scope sections have been added; these are consistent with what is currently in the PWP document. However, some discussions have started on the mailing list which affects those sections; until that is resolved, the charter’s sections should be frozen (and updated when the time comes)
  • Some text have been added to make clear that the WG would work with the WCAG Working Group to make sure that publishing’s needs are taken into account (this is now in scope for WCAG)
  • The section on ARIA deliverables has been changed slightly (see Issue #10)

PWP Draft on locators

Leonard described his proposed changes on the draft (merged by now): removed the locators where it was not necessary, keeping things at a high level. No separate section on locators only a general definition. He also did some other editorial changes (more consistent usage of WP, for example).

The major thing to discuss is on the introduction section, that covers the basic definition on WP; this is now a mailing list discussion (that should yield explicit issues).


  • The Web Annotation WG has issued a Proposed Recommendation now, W3C members are encouraged to vote
  • Garth Conboy gave a brief overview of the IDPF/W3C merger status (briefly: things may be completed very soon now)
  • Some discussion on the upcoming DPUB BG and CG status
  • Planning for a DPUB WG F2F (hoping that WG to happen); currently the first F2F would be set to the week of the 5th of June, in NYC (hosted by Adobe), the second as part of the W3C TPAC week (week of the 6th of November) in the Silicon Valley.

DPUB IG Telco, 2017-01-09: PWP locators section, charter

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

Locator section in the PWP doc

This section is one of the sections to be thoroughly rewritten, but it has not been entirely clear how. There are lots of good technical content there, but the text is nevertheless to specific, not in balance with the rest of the document. It contains references to manifests, canonical, etc, and it is not clear whether it should stay as is.

It has been said that the goal of the document is to provide a good input to the possible W3C DPUB WG, that would then do a more thorough technical specification. After some discussion it was agreed that the core text should be revised to make it shorter and higher level, and push the technical content into an appendix, making it clear that that is really just jotting down ideas for the future.

It was noted that similar discussions are happening in the Readium consortium; it is therefore a good idea to use the experiences in that community to record them in this document, too.

Additional todo-s in the PWP document

There was a short discussion on what else should be done (beyond an editorial reconciliation of the various parts), these included cross references to the use case document. It would also be a good idea to publish this document and the use case as official drafts.


There was a short discussion on the various charters (Business Group, Community Group, Working Group) and their status and timeline. These are all related to the possible IDPF/W3C merger process (which may be completed by the end of the month). There will also be a W3C Member Submission to W3C for EPUB 3.1; the goal is to settle the IPR differences between IDPF and W3C with regard to that document (to make it reusable for further work at W3C without any licensing and IPR issues).

The main role of this IG is to provide technical comments to the WG charter. That may include adding Readium documents, as well as documents coming from the IDPF EPUB WG, to the list of input document to the WG charter as technical input.


Due to Martin Luther King day in the US the next meeting is cancelled.

DPUB IG Telco, 2016-12-05: DPUB-PWP: locators, packaging

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.)

DPUB Category on Discourse

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…

Posted in Activity News | Comments Off on DPUB IG Telco, 2016-12-05: DPUB-PWP: locators, packaging