Publishing Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2020-01-06

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Tzviya Siegman, Nick Ruffilo, Ivan Herman, Dave Cramer, George Kerscher, Wendy Reid, Teenya Franklin, Deborah Kaplan, Ben Schroeter, Ric Wright, Franco Alvarado, David Stroup, Geoff Jukes, Garth Conboy, Brady Duga, Joshua Pyle, Benjamin Young, Marisa DeMeglio, Juan Corona, Ric Wright

Regrets: Gregorio Pellegrino, Luc Audrain, Romain Deltour, Avneesh Singh, Matt Garrish, Nellie McKesson



Scribe(s): Nick Ruffilo


Nick Ruffilo: scribenick NickRuffilo

Dave Cramer: See CSS Print workshop in Prague

Geoff Jukes: prsent+

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: Welcome back everyone - I hope you enjoyed whatever you’ve done in the past month since we met…
… Any comments on the minutes? Approved!

Resolution #1: last minutes approved

1. testing

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: The main topic of today’s agenda is testing, but Matt is not able to make it, but Wendy can give an overview.

Wendy Reid: The test repo is more-or-less complete. There are some pull requests that need to be closed, but the tests for manifest processing, TOC processing, user agent behaviors, etc. Just working on final formatting. The only missing tests are about LPF from Laurent - hopefully we’ll get them soon
… otherwise they are complete and ready for whomever wants to run them. If you are interested, please do so and provide feedback.

Ivan Herman: See lists of available reports

Tzviya Siegman: we’ve had some commitments about testing - where are we on the things we need?

Wendy Reid: the tests that we need to have run are the processing of the pub and the audio manifest. The User Agent behavior is less required, but good to know in terms of usability. It’s manifest + TOC that MUST be run to confirm the specification passes.

Ivan Herman: to be very precise - the Table of Contents is not required as it’s not normative. We did include it, and there are implementations now, but it’s not formally required - such as LPF when it comes. In a due diligence and good behavior, it is good to have those tests, too

Tzviya Siegman: I agree with Ivan and it’s good to make sure we have those tests. If there is anyone who can offer to do some of the testing, that would be phenomenal.

Ivan Herman: There is a pull request on the test manifest. There are a number of tests that matt came up with - I also worked on an implementation. There are some small issues, so that link should lead to some proper reports when Matt accepts the pull request.
… What is missing is a link to the report for the user agent behavior testing but that’s still under working.

Marisa DeMeglio: Could someone put a link to the test repo? I might have some things to contribute.

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: I believe Lars said he could test, but not until February.

Ivan Herman: The current status is that there are 2 implementations. Those implementations are fine to have on manifest processing, but I would be pretty unhappy if they were the only ones who reported back…
… because they are separate programs meant to test, but not living implementations.

Tzviya Siegman: Lars’ tests are real world. Marisa, are yours real-world implementations?

Marisa DeMeglio: I’ve been working on some demos, so as part of that I wrote a publication manifest processor - it’s meant to be for my use but I realized others might find it useful. It’s still a conference demo…

Tzviya Siegman: In my experience, having Kobo, Google, readium, etc - whatever algorithm/code they are working on is what i’m looking for

Ric Wright: Just FYI, we do have our first Readium engineering meeting - i have it on the agenda as to how we can help with the testing and will get back on that

Wendy Reid: For transparency, I’m attempting to do the same for Kobo - but we’ll see

Marisa DeMeglio:

Dave Cramer:

Ivan Herman: Marisa - we should probably take it offline but there are a bunch of tests there which are small manifests - I hope they are useful for you as well. If it has features that are not tested there, it’d be great if you added them back to the repository. The report file has at the end how to add new tests. The URLs that are there are needing work - which is part of the PR that is there…

2. meeting schedule

Tzviya Siegman: The only other agenda item is to talk about a meeting schedule for the coming weeks. The last time we met, we concluded that we don’t need to meet on a weekly basis until we have more information on the testing. Maybe every other week? Comments?

Deborah Kaplan: What would we do if we had to miss one - schedule for an of-week? or just miss the month?

Nick Ruffilo: What about a 15 minute checkpoint?

Tzviya Siegman: That tends not to work for most people - as they tend to trickle in…

Ivan Herman: I like Nick’s proposal, especially given what Deborah proposed - we don’t want to go a month without a meeting. That can be even worse, as people’s agendas get messed up. If it was every week but shorter, that might be better

Wendy Reid: Maybe a compromise - We can do 30 minutes every 2 weeks, and if something would be skipped, reschedule for week after?

Tzviya Siegman: we could put it on the calendar every week and cancel if need be - that way people can hold the time if needed?

Deborah Kaplan: tzviya: +1

Garth Conboy: I like that plan

Tzviya Siegman: Plan is to keep it on the calendar, assume it’s going to be short, and expect frequent cancellations every other week - expect meeting to be relatively short until we get back to assessing test results

Nick Ruffilo: +1

Garth Conboy: +1

Wendy Reid: +1

Ivan Herman: it would be better if what we decided gets set as a formal resolution

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

George Kerscher: Is Next call Jan 27?

Deborah Kaplan: +1

Geoff Jukes: +1

Resolution #2: Keep weekly meeting on the calendar, but assume it will be short, and expect frequent cancellations (approximately every other week). Expect meeting to be relatively short until we get back to assessing test results.

Tzviya Siegman: Keep testing - we will talk soon

3. Resolutions