Publishing Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2018-02-26

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Deborah Kaplan, Gregorio Pellegrino, Tzviya Siegman, Rachel Comerford, Evan Owens, Jasmine Mulliken, Avneesh Singh, Mateus Teixeira, Luc Audrain, Nick Ruffilo, Toshiaki Koike, Laura Brady, George Kerscher, Jun Gamou, Romain Deltour, Bill Kasdorf, Zheng Xu, Ivan Herman, Dave Cramer, Joshua Pyle, Teenya Franklin, Peter Krautzberger, Ben Walters, Benjamin Young, Lillian Sullam, Ric Wright, Chris Maden, Hadrien Gardeur, Laurent Le Meur, Mustapha Lazrek, Michael Goodman, Ben Schroeter, Marisa DeMeglio, Vladimir Levantovsky, Greg Davis, Brady Duga, Dave Stroup, Tim Cole

Regrets: Jeff Buehler, Wolfgang Schindler, Garth Conboy, Heather Flanagan


Chair: Tzviya Siegman

Scribe(s): Nick Ruffilo


Michael Goodman: I’m working for a subsidiary of Wiley. I’m relatively new to publishing and interested in what you are doing from a security perspective.

Tzviya Siegman: I believe Bill K had volunteered you to write about security.

Michael Goodman: Oh.

Bill Kasdorf: Hmm. I guess I did that…

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: Last week’s minutes - any comments?
… Minutes approved

Resolution #1: Meeting of two weeks ago approved

1. Affordances Task Force

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: Next topic is affordances. In the last few weeks, we have opened a number of issues on the topics of affordances. Just a few minutes ago there were 2 people - Mateus and Jasmine - the task force will make sure we have all our affordances documents - and that everything is written in the documentation. One issue is that it may not in the final version of the doc, but for the time being, it will be in github or the webpub documentation as we need to have placeholders for this. There are probably 10 issues around affordances for now. We have topics ranging from guided navigation to offline as well as a definition for affordances. This could be a full topic or we could wait until the task force is put together.

Ivan Herman: what I think should be clarified, is something I put as an issue a while ago - 143, i think we need to agree on a template for how we handle affordances. What do we expect to be in the document. There were some comments from Romain, and that is something that should be clarified first, then we can go on to the individual efforts.

Ivan Herman:

Mateus Teixeira: +1 to ivan

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: Excellent point. Glad you pointed that issue # out. That’s exactly the point. In 143 we talk about how affordances should be handled. Ivan and I agree with Romain in his comments. If we can come to consensus around that point, we’re headed in the right direction.

George Kerscher: “The details of the affordances - and I’m pretty sure something like the content of the HTML is being presented to the end-user, but, from an accessibility perspective, the ability to perceive the information is just part of WCAG - and I think it’s something we can assume, but I know how to spell assume and the problems that come along with it. We don’t have to put in something that fundamental into our affordances, correct?

Avneesh Singh: I think there are a lot of accessibility issues, so I’d like to join the task force. Many issues are debatable - such as navigation. Next page/previous page should be identified. But it would be the UA responsibility, but we should discuss it on the calls and have the accessibility task for available.

Deborah Kaplan: we can put in “follows WCAG”

Ivan Herman: I think we have to be very careful to look only at affordances that are publication specific. The fact that the content of the HTML must be accessible - that should be considered as a given because it’s already defined, and it should be true on all of the affordances. Such as the affordances of being able to search for text in a document - since this is around in every browser. But the fact that we want a search through the entire publication, that is a new affordance only related to publication.

Tzviya Siegman: Worth going back to the document we wrote before about the whole publication as a unified document/whole.

2. WAM Task Force

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: The WAM (web app manifest) task force is also new.

Benjamin Young: The WAM task force is focused on narrowing down what - if anything - needs to be added to the WAM and the systems for reading them. Romain sent a note about it last week. If you’re interested in that space or the implementation, we’d love to have your input. If you’re a browser-vendor, you’re required.

George Kerscher: George heading to another standards call. Bye.

Ivan Herman: I think an important point will be to have a number of issues we submit to the relevant documents/working groups. That is something that should come out of the WAM group.

Tzviya Siegman: ‘open and track issues on the WAM repository’ that is the goal.

Ivan Herman: The question is whether this task force is exclusively on WAM or will they morph into a task force that will come up with a first proposal of a JSON serialization we are looking for.

Tzviya Siegman: Good question - perhaps we should see how it plays out and give it time.

Benjamin Young: Some of it is around determining what things SHOULD go into a WAM, but what can actually get over that fence in an acceptable way - and what may need to be serialized somewhere else. it’s first about what can be requested to add to WAM, but we are not coming with the full pallet of the infoset and assuming the WAM is the place - but to figure out what makes sense, and then work our

Nick Ruffilo: way through our list and see what else might need to go where.

Tzviya Siegman: I spoke with Romain and Benjamin, one issue we spoke about was about the information in the web IDL not being manifested in the DOM. This task force will discuss that issue and what to do with it.

Ivan Herman: That is one question, and the way I see the WAM - we can add to it whatever we want, in terms of JSON syntax, we are allowed to do that. That isn’t the problem. There are some things we would inherit and use because they are close to what we want, but we may want them to be more precise (direction, internationalization of titles) but there are some other features that we need and we would just add them. I don’t see that really as a problem.

Romain Deltour: I think for the task force we should be very practical and look at the WAM and not consider everything around the WAM. One objective of the task force is to identify what doesn’t go into the WAM as much as identifying what does go into the WAM. If we identify things that are not a good fit for WAM - then we would not necessarily have to shoehorn it into the WAM.

Deborah Kaplan: +1 for moving these conversations to the task force

Benjamin Young: Romain said most of what I wanted to say - but that is the approach the TF plans to take. If you want to join, we’d love to have you.

Laurent Le Meur: If the reading system doesn’t know what to do with this manifest adapted from the WAM, we need to have a discussion and see where to go next.

Tzviya Siegman: When we spoke to the WAM people in the past, they weren’t interested in discussion until we had a list of very technical things to discuss.

Romain Deltour: +1 to what tzviya said

Benjamin Young: The WAM authors and browser vendors want very specific requests as to what we want to iterate on. They don’t have interest in blue-sky-ing it. They want concrete items. So far we have given them concepts and they don’t want that. the TF is about defining the specific requests.

Ivan Herman: Probably it’s worth involving the TAG as early as possible. They might be good to bring in early, as they can help us acting as go-betweens since they are not tied to the TAG. The comments we got from the TAG were in this direction.

Romain Deltour: +1, liaison with TAG is also stated as a goal of the WAM TF (when relevant)

Tzviya Siegman: Some of the questions are - is the WAM the right place, how can they be displayed visually, and if not, do they get placed in WAM, etc. So there is some tension about putting things in the WAM. You have content that is also metadata - so what do we do about it. It would be great if you joined the taskforce.

3. Industry feedback for FPWD

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: Next topic - industry feedback from first public working draft. Brady sent an email that was very interesting. Anything to add to that?

Ivan Herman: see also

Deborah: I was curious about the feedback that Brady sent where they said: “why are there no accessibility details because some of the things Ivan said were about keeping it high-level. I was wondering about that feedback, given that conscious choice to leave it vague. Or is this not the time to mention?

Tzviya Siegman: I don’t think we left it’ vague, but it was very early, and some accessibility - such as treatment of the publication as a whole, so we’ll have to make some of those points, we just didn’t do it in the working draft as there was nothing to say yet.

Avneesh Singh: we have to figure out the basic details first. How is the TOC handled, the reading order, only then the things can begin. We don’t know what the basic structure is, so we don’t know the accessibility requirements.

Deborah: so good feedback, but we don’t need to worry about right now.

Ivan Herman: I put it into an issue - This kind of response should be there and copied. It should be documented.

Tzviya Siegman: It’s not too late to ask for feedback. we still don’t have some of the sections written - lots of holes in our documentation. We have not heard from all of the reading systems. We’ve heard from Readium, but not many of the others.
… It was in the last several agendas. The more feedback we get, the better

Tzviya Siegman:

4. Pull request on progression direction

Ivan Herman: There is a pull request that has been on the pull request list for a while. I put it in as a closure of a longer discussion we’ve had on one item. We need information in the document as part of the infoset. I haven’t received any comments on it, and I think it’s in line with what we’ve discussed.

Tzviya Siegman: dave - if you could review, that’d be great.

Ivan Herman:

Dave Cramer: I can review…

Tzviya Siegman: Any questions on that? Please review the pull request

Benjamin Young: It strikes me that this reading progression is very ‘affordance’ but it assumes an interface that goes left-to-right and not a scrolling one.

Ivan Herman: the only thing the pull request has is that it should be part of the infoset.

5. F2F meeting

Tzviya Siegman: The only other agenda item is the may face-to-face meeting. Is Wendy on the call?

Tzviya Siegman:

Ben Dugas: Wendy is not but Jeff and I from Kobo are

Ben Dugas: Wendy mentioned this morning she had some follow up to do with local hotels and has enlisted the services of our executive assistance team who know more about booking things than we do

Tzviya Siegman: We have not had much discussion on the F2F but it’s coming up. Linked is the preliminary information. Ivan has started a google doc of topics and planning. There was a bit of a snafu with the hotels that Wendy was working on. Wendy was working on getting a count of hotels. Do we have any more information on that?

Ben Dugas: sorry

Ben Dugas: nothing to add today

Ben Dugas: but I’ll chat with Wendy

Evan Owens: F2F meeting is same date as SSP Conf. so not able to attend F2F; sorry.

Tzviya Siegman: Ivan will post a link to his document. Kobo has contact with hotels, but there is some issue with information sharing. A count would be needed. It would be helpful if we all stayed at the same hotel. So we need to know if you are going and which hotel.

Ivan Herman: Google doc document on charter draft and participants’ list:

Bill Kasdorf: Ditto for me.

Tzviya Siegman: On the website there are a number of options. Which of these is closest to the office, Ben?

Ben Dugas: none are super close

Laura Brady: None of the hotels are walking distance.

Ben Dugas: Kobo isn’t downtown so all the hotels will be at least a 15-30 minute walk

Laura Brady: Kobo is a little outside of the downtown core where most hotels are.

Ben Dugas: easy access via transit or cabs though

Zheng Xu: The Gladstone is about 15 mins walk I think?

Luc Audrain: half an hour is a good walking distance in May

Tzviya Siegman: Fill your name on the Google Doc. Attendance is optional - we will try to set up call-in-information but sometimes it works, other times not

Deborah Kaplan: It would be really nice if the W3C had a scholarship fund that could pay for people who are invited experts…

Laura Brady: +1 dkaplan3

Tzviya Siegman: we will set up webex or something similar and try to make it possible. We did try to figure out which day was best. Yes it’s in NA - but this time and location won by a significant number of people would be able to come over other times/locations. This is what made it possible for more people to attend.

Tzviya Siegman: i know

Deborah Kaplan: I was just wishing the W3C realized that economic access is a participation and diversity issue :(

Tzviya Siegman: prior - we tried to have a virtual face-to-face all day, it didn’t work as well as a face-2-face, but it was not as successful.

Luc Audrain: TPAC 2018 in Lyon, France

Joshua Pyle: There is a close/overlap of SSP, but that scheduling would be difficult. Is there a deadline for registering?

Tzviya Siegman: We probably have a week or two, but the sooner the better.

Joshua Pyle: I couldn’t go to TPAC because it conflicted with Charlestone…

Tzviya Siegman: If we’re trying to get a group discount, that is best, but you can always stay in a different hotel if you need.

Ben Dugas: one note about hotels: they’ll all be in nice walkable neighborhoods and the walk/drive to from the office is also nice so don’t worry about picking the wrong one end ending up my the highway.

6. Resolutions