PWG Weekly Telco — Minutes

Date: 2019-06-24

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Deborah Kaplan, Tzviya Siegman, Dave Cramer, George Kerscher, Franco Alvarado, Benjamin Young, David Stroup, Joshua Pyle, Ben Schroeter, Simon Collinson, Geoff Jukes, Jun Gamou, Brady Duga, Bill Kasdorf, Garth Conboy

Regrets: Ivan Herman, Wendy Reid, Avneesh Singh, Laurent Le Meur, Luc Audrain, Gregorio Pellegrino, Romain Deltour, Nick Ruffilo, Tim Cole


Chair: Tzviya Siegman

Scribe(s): Benjamin Young


Tzviya Siegman: lots of folks in Paris because of the EDRLab meeting

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: let’s take a look at last week’s meeting notes
… any comments?

Benjamin Young: scribe+ dauwhe

Tzviya Siegman: k…minutes approved
… josh and franco are you both here?

Franco Alvarado: yep

Joshua Pyle: indeed

Tzviya Siegman: then you can take us through the finalizing steps for the UCR document

1. FInalizing UCR for Publication

Joshua Pyle: I nominate franco to go first

Tzviya Siegman:

Franco Alvarado: so josh and I would like some feedback on a couple more issues
… first one is issue #213

Tzviya Siegman:

Franco Alvarado: josh suggests it seems to recommend that the document be using DRM
… rather than possibly using it

Tzviya Siegman: github:

Franco Alvarado: so, we suggest a change to mention the possibility
… but not make it sound like a requirement

Franco Alvarado: A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication.

Dave Cramer: github:

Joshua Pyle: I just agreed with the TAG reviewer

Tzviya Siegman: github:

Joshua Pyle: I think it is a little problematic

Franco Alvarado: I just pasted in the recommended rephrasing–reading it now

Franco Alvarado: “A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and rights protections of the publication.”

Dave Cramer: do we need to make a statement around this at all?

Joshua Pyle: dauwhe are you suggesting we leave it as is?
… despite the TAG feedback?

Dave Cramer: no, I’m more thinking about dropping the use case

Joshua Pyle: ah. quite right. that’s been my go to rememdy
… it had been my position to take it out (in general)
… and we took a lot out, so I’ve been concerned we’d taken too much out
… so I wanted to check with the group on this one

Tzviya Siegman: this should probably point to 16 not 17
… I think the reason this is in here is not the “classic”/traditional content protection use case
… but rather than library use case for content protection
… so I’m a little hesitant to pull it completely
… the other case is making sure folks with disability can access it–despite the DRM

Franco Alvarado: I’m in agreement that it should remain and be rephrased
… like the WP may be subject to this, rather than it containing those protections in itself

Tzviya Siegman: “A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication.”

Brady Duga: I prefer the original text
… the revision is not quite right
… a WP must not do something
… if I want to make a WP that cannot be DRM’d, I should be allowed to do that
… I think it’s more that WP’s not prevent using DRM
… this rephrasing makes it sound like WP’s should always be compatible with DRM
… and I don’t think we should make that a requirement

Tzviya Siegman: the goal seems to be that it should be compatible with DRM, but not require it

Dave Cramer: I sort of agree with duga
… we keep saying DRM, but are we talking about encrypting content and stuff
… or are we saying something more like logging into a bank account?
… for which you need a login to use at all
… like with the NY Times, I have to be a subscriber to access the content
… that seems pretty implicit to the design of the Web
… we are not creating use cases that say every publication must be accessible to anyone with that URL
… so perhaps there’s a way to express this more compatibly with the rest of the Web

Joshua Pyle: I didn’t choose the “write”, but I think it’s correct
… these aren’t “right” as in access permissions–these are protecting from writing
… I hadn’t thought of the earlier mention of preventing DRM
… not sure why someone would do that

Tzviya Siegman: current wording is “A Web Publication should be able to express the access control and write protections of the publication.”

Bill Kasdorf: I think we should explicitly be agnostic on the issue.

Joshua Pyle: in light of that, I’m back to wondering why say anything about it

Tzviya Siegman: franco and josh could you remind us about the TAG comment on this one?
… and why we’re discussing it

Franco Alvarado: UC 121: Alice acquires a Packaged Web Publication through a subscription service and downloads it. When, later on, she decides to unsubscribe from the service, this Web Publication becomes unavailable to her.

Franco Alvarado: the comment said, this seems problematic for this particular use case

Tzviya Siegman: this probably just needs explanation

Dave Cramer: the other interesting this is that as phrased right now it seems like a question of metadata
… are we proposing that we need an access control vocabulary
… it sort of comes down to the question of who are we talking about here
… if I’m putting a journal online
… I can setup whatever registration access control that I want
… again we seem to have an implicit assumption that we’re talking about a file format or something
… that could include a permissions expression or access control vocabulary
… all of that strikes me as odd

Franco Alvarado: I think what dauwhe is describing here, is that there would be something in the WP that would express the right/write protection
… I’m not versed in DRM at all
… but I still think this just needs rephrasing
… since we have subscription and library scenarios, I’d think we should keep it
… the current way it’s being stated seems to dictate something we’re not wanting to dictate
… the rephrasing suggestion currently may not work, but I can propose something else

Joshua Pyle: agreed. In my comment on the issue, I was noting that it seemed like the WP was somehow including this metadata
… we don’t want to suggest that the WP includes a method of access control or DRM

Brady Duga: so, I think I agree with all of that
… if we’re rewriting that, just make it clear that the access control is something external to a WP
… and that the WP shouldn’t break such a mechanism

Tzviya Siegman: so I think we should change UCR 16 to allowing for this
… it should just be a minor tweak
… franco and josh please work on this one, and send it around–unless you have wording right now

Joshua Pyle: I think it’s fine to go offline
… I’d only ask if we resolve this online, and finalize it next week
… and then agree to it on github

Tzviya Siegman: exactly

Garth Conboy: I just wanted to comment, whatever the agreed language, we should focus more on ‘not disable’ rather than ‘should enable’

George Kerscher: I like it too.

Bill Kasdorf: +1

Tzviya Siegman: it needs to function, not just not function

Joshua Pyle: A Web Publication must not prevent any other system from expressing access control and write protections of the publication.

Tzviya Siegman: duga feel free to disagree with that. :)
… unless duga you’ve come around

Brady Duga: I don’t know. It seems like we’re forcing all these to have access control applied to them
… there may be places where you want the opposite
… and I’m concerned about making “must not prevent” being a use case

Tzviya Siegman: agreed. I think we’ve come full circle
… and I’m leaning on josh and franco to tweak the wording
… the other issues is #215

Tzviya Siegman:

Joshua Pyle: I hope everyone’s reading these, but this one has to do with CSS counters
… and in this case, across resources
… if I had a 15 chapter legal document that had paragraph numbering
… a lot of times, you’d use a CSS counter to number all of those
… but that doesn’t work across documents
… there was a requirement that WP’s somehow support something that I don’t know how to do in CSS
… you can hard code the numbering of course
… I put a comment in there, and got some feedback
… one of them said, I thought this was about page numbering
… and I don’t think it is
… so my first question, is this about CSS numbering across documents?
… and having CSS seed the starting number from a previous document

Bill Kasdorf: typically publishers would want to control the numbering via hard coding anyway–especially legal

Joshua Pyle: and if so, how do deal that in a world that doesn’t work that way

Dave Cramer: the use case is a little weird
… the user is requesting a specific technology to achieve a larger goal
… we sort of assume having multiple HTML documents is the ultimate goal
… and that CSS is the only way to achieve that goal
… which I think sets us up for failure
… because I think this will always be impossible in CSS

Bill Kasdorf: not always, just “typically”

Dave Cramer: going up to the requirement…I don’t see this as a requirement
… is this something a web content creator thinks about
… is there concern about documents being layered on top of each other?

Brady Duga: +1K

Dave Cramer: I think this on is not very well expressed

Franco Alvarado: +1

Dave Cramer: I’d be happy to take this one out

Garth Conboy: +1

Bill Kasdorf: +1

Dave Cramer: and it’s associated use cases

George Kerscher: +1 to what Dave said.

Tzviya Siegman: I do think we were originally talking about page numbering
… it was a very long time ago
… in some sort of idealized world, perhaps this included figure numbering
… and this needs to be customizable
… you can’t create a rule about these things
… because it’s going to vary
… things like section numbering will vary from publication to publication
… like josh is explaining, unless you use variables and share them across resources…
… this one needs to come out

Garth Conboy: my recollection was that this was originally about OL’s across documents
… but I also agree that we shouldn’t legislate the impossible

Joshua Pyle: I’m reading it right now, and it does talk about section numbering
… maybe it was about page numbering initially
… but it now includes section numbering

George Kerscher: if anyone’s going to reference paragraph numbers in a legal document, you don’t want that auto generated anyway

Benjamin Young: +1

Brady Duga: +1

Bill Kasdorf: +1

Franco Alvarado: +1

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Joshua Pyle: +100

Garth Conboy: +1

Geoff Jukes: +1

Deborah Kaplan: +1

Dave Cramer: Kill! Kill! Kill!

George Kerscher: +1

Tzviya Siegman: very good. then josh and franco please remove that section
… and tweak requirement 16
… about access control
… and you’ll send that around to the group for review
… and then hopefully declare this publishable

Joshua Pyle: yeah. we’ve got a few more things to clean up, but yeah, we should be able to meet the end of June deadline

Tzviya Siegman: then you can work with ivan on the details of publishing this document
… I’m sure he’s on email during the summit
… so. that’s it for our agenda
… anything else?
… ok. class dismissed!