- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:40 +0200
- To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org >> W3C Digital Publishing IG" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Hi all,
The minutes of the Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference
dated 2015-08-10 are now available at
http://www.w3.org/2015/08/10-dpub-minutes.html
These public minutes are also linked from the dpub wiki
http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Meetings
Also find these minutes in a text version following, for your convenience.
Best,
Thierry Michel
------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference
10 Aug 2015
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://www.w3.org/mid/4dbb322aec26481ab60b5e307c70a05e@CAR-WNMBP-006.wiley.com
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/10-dpub-irc
Attendees
Present
Tzviya Siegman, Tim Cole, Bill Kasdorf, Brady Duga, Dave
Cramer, Ben Holden-Crowther, Ivan Herman, Markus
Gylling, Heather Flanagan, Julie Morris, Deborah Kaplan,
Leonard Rosenthol, Thierry Michel.
Regrets
Peter Krautzberger, Vladimir Levantovsky, Alan Stearns,
Ben De Meester
Chair
Tzviya Siegman
Scribe
Markus Gylling, Nick Ruffilo
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]education and outreach update
2. [6]ARIA taskforce meeting 13th August
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 10 August 2015
<tmichel> present Thierry+
<mgylling> scribenick mgylling
<mgylling> scribenick: mgylling
<tzviya>
[8]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DPU
B+IG+meeting&iso=20150810T11&p1=43&ah=1
[8]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DPUB+IG+meeting&iso=20150810T11&p1=43&ah=1
Tzviya: minutes from last week… are approved
<tzviya> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/03-dpub-minutes.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/03-dpub-minutes.html
Tzviya: new member this week, Leonard from Adobe, will
introduce himself when he joins
education and outreach update
Nick: Karen had to send regrets
… we are slightly behind or original schedule, but expect to
get caught up within the next two weeks. We have made
connections with publishing media outlutes: publishers weekly,
DBW and publishing perspectives
… on a high level, publishing perspectives is getting broad
topics and potentially internationally relevant stuff, DBW will
be getting presentations and we will be tapping them to do
speaking arrangements, publishers weekly are getting think
pieces
… turning a Jeff Jaffe presentation on publishing on the web
into prose, this will be a feature
… they want two or three pieces from us: 1) what is W3C, how is
it related to IDPF 2) W3C membership importance for business
users, 3) W3C membership importance for technical users
<pbelfanti> Business users in general or in context of
publishing?
… the news outlets are very excited
Tzviya: would you remind us about the timeline?
Nick: new timeline’s same as original
<pbelfanti> We should leverage BISG as well for webinars, etc.
… by august first, solidify complete topic schedule, 1) explain
W3C, 2) explain differences and joint goal with IDPF, 3)explain
to business users technical users and existing users what the
value of participation is.
… hope to run first webinar by september 1st, lineup not
solidified yet
Ivan: who would be involved, what do you expect from us?
Nick: at this moment trying to keep participation to a minimum
because its easier, most writing will be Karen and I, we will
put it out for comments
… would want help when writing articles on new specs that we
are working on
Bill_Kasdorf: wanted to reinforce the concept of Nick doing the
writing
Nick: anything I write for external consumption is not a formal
W3C document
... after Jeff article we plan a news piece, the next big thing
we’re working on is the presentation run through DBW, meant to
be the intro to W3C
… we have a lineup of Pierre Danet and hopefully Bill McCoy
Ivan: one practical thing we have to be careful about: I expect
lots of difficult scheduling to happen for each of these steps,
but it is also true for people on this group, we should be
careful that schedules and deadline not interfere with this
groups schedule
Nick: the outreach committee is completely reactive, if we
publish something we will go to the appropriate outlet and ask
if they can post it
… so I would never say lets hold off, my schedule is conceptual
… we are not PR, we are not trying to latch on to trends
Nick: we have a very good relationship with the news publishers
ARIA taskforce meeting 13th August
Tzviya: at 12:30 EST
<NickRuffilo> scribenick: NickRuffilo
Tzviya: "What is the objective of the ARIA taskforce meeting?
We have been asked by the ARIA taskforce of the use and support
for described-at. Our taskforce put together a document because
'we need this because X, Y, Z' with tons of examples. In
advance of this meeting - there was a response saying: 'those
can be accomplished by Alpha, Beta, Gamma..."
...: "What I need is a list of requirements that publishing
needs - not necessarily described-at, but things that include
lists, links, or any number of things. This can be accomplished
by described-at but also other things. This isn't necessarily
going to be accomplished at the meeting, but it will be
discussed. If you're of the technical bent, read the response
from apple's formal objecting
and the W3C response."
Ivan: "The formal objection was not on described-at"
<tzviya> objection
[10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014
Aug/0028.html
[10]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html
<tzviya> response:
[11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014
Oct/0099.html
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Oct/0099.html
Tzviya: "Links above..."
Ivan: "There was a formal exception on a CSS attribute that was
long-desc. That was the subject of the formal objection. That
has been formally overruled by the director of the W3C. The
links were provided was almost 2 years ago. We do not have a
formal objection on described-at however described-at can be
thought of JUST like long-desc but it can be on any element
(unlike long-desc which is
image-only). Given this group's list of explanations, apple
pointed to the objection, but didn't say they would object
necessarily."
...: "Problem is that they claim there are other existing means
in HTML to provide the same set of functionality (or richer
functionality) elsewhere in HTML. They want to limit
attributes/elements when one set can handle the goal. The main
one they refer to is the element that was discussed 2 years ago
in HTML but did NOT make it to HTML 5.0 but it is in 5.1 -> the
details element. It can be
added as a sub-element to anything, and in that details element
you can add additional details on the specific thing. The
user-agent by default does NOT display that element. By default
it's meant to be in the background. That is what Apple prefers.
The biggest pros and cons is that long-desc and described-at is
here - we can use it now, whereas details is not yet supported
- so we're not
sure how to utilize it."
...: "Markus - was that at least correct?"
Markus: "Yes."
Tzviya: "One thing we'll be involved in is looking at the
features that will exist - such as web annotations - can
support this functionality."
...: "It's something that will be on the agenda in the future"
Ivan: "These kinds of formal objections are very touchy - very
legalize in text, and require lots of care - so we should never
think of writing an article."
Tzviya: "If you wish to join the meeting, contact me for
information"
Leonard: "I'm the PDF Architect for Adobe Systems, but I chair
an org inside Adobe - technical council of file formats. I do
lots of co-ordination of the file-formats that Adobe is
involved in. That's why I'm here today. I have a long
background and history in this area. I've been working with PDF
and Document formats for 20 years."
Tzviya: "Leonard - you made some comments on the
Prioritization. Can you comment further?"
<tzviya>
[12]https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Public
ation_and_Packaging
[12]
https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging
Leonard: "Key issue that I feel strong about - what exactly the
group is trying to accomplish with respect to packaging and
delivery of Open Web Paltform content in a non-online matter.
Ivan's document (the last version that got published). Coming
from a software background - i love having actual user
requirements, use cases. It was very well laid out. A name
where technology was already
chosen. 'I have a hammer, so everything is a nail.' I don't see
any sort of detailed technical analysis that shows a comparison
or GAP analaysis for the package technologies that are around.
I'm not convinced that epub is the right solution for the
packaging requirements.'
...: "What i'm asking is - can we back off from technology
choices - until we do a check on all the available options.
What features are/aren't available. using that information to
make a decision. Maybe there is something else out there that
solves the harder issues. I haven't done the evaluation
eithers. "
Ivan: "The epub + web document - is not yet an official
document of the interest group - it has had lots of input, but
we're working on a re-chartering of this group. That new
charter refers to that document as being the guiding document
for the work. For all goods and purposes, you can regard it as
being part of this group's work. For the other thing, I think
there is one issue that we should
be very careful about - "
...: "Epub 3 today is out there and has a business usage, it
has been a long road to get it accepted by publishers but it
now works. We don't want to get into the situation where we get
rid of it and try to push something new. We don't want to do
something that has no chance for an uptake. We start from epub
(3 or 3.1) and if we go towards epub+web - yes there will be
points here and there
where we may not be backwards compatible... If we move to the
web, the role of XML within epub may change, but underlying the
work, there is a need to minimize the changes where it is
really necessary, otherwise the standards are a paper exercise"
...: "I don't know if markus or paul or people from the
publishing side have a different perspective."
Leonard: "If backwards compatibility were 100%, then I agree.
Then i would support that. 'In order to address technical
requirements you have to break backwards compatibility with
epub' Because you're breaking backwards compatibility, then
there is no compatibility. If they aren't going to work in the
new world - then they need to be open in the new world."
Tzviya: "Not sure anyone is disagreeing. If you read epub+web,
we always say we don't love the name. if you take the word
"epub" out of the title, I think you're complaint will go
away."
Ivan: "if you look at the structure of epub. The major stuff
that is there, and the workflows that get people to publish.
And the workflows that publishers are using - and the
administrative layer. The content itself. The usage of HTML5,
CSS, etc. That has to be backwards compatible."
Leonard: "So epub X is not a file that can be consumed or
produced by existing tools. If all the tools break - small or
large - why not look for a tool chain change that benefits
them?"
Paul: "I think that - as Ivan just stated - at the end of the
day - is that epub 3 is a packaging spec for open-web
standards. I don't think we should assume too much right now.
It has to be backwards compatible and practicle. Even though
epub 3 is a standard today - one of the big issues today. One
of the issues is that there is a lack of support right now for
all the epub 3 features to
allow us to support the types of content we want to publish."
Bill: "I am just pointing out that there are 2 orgs. One is
W3C. Other is IDPF. IDPF is epub. W3C is the standards upon
which epub is built on."
Tzviya: "epub is not something we talk about all too often, but
we talk about addressing standards that can support what we can
called "epub-web" but will likely have a name-change soon"
<tmichel> rrsagaent,draft minutes
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version
1.140 ([14]CVS log)
$Date: 2015/08/10 16:10:26 $
__________________________________________________________
[13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30
Check for newer version at [15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/'//
Found ScribeNick: mgylling
Found ScribeNick: NickRuffilo
Inferring Scribes: mgylling, NickRuffilo
Scribes: mgylling, NickRuffilo
ScribeNicks: mgylling, NickRuffilo
Present: Tzviya_Siegman Tim Cole Bill_Kasdorf duga Dave_Cramer Ben_Holde
n-Crowther Ivan Markus Heather Flanagan Julie_Morris Deborah_kaplan Leon
ard_Rosenthol
Regrets: Peter Alan Vlad Ben
Agenda: [16]http://www.w3.org/mid/4dbb322aec26481ab60b5e307c70a05e@CAR-W
NMBP-006.wiley.com
Found Date: 10 Aug 2015
Guessing minutes URL: [17]http://www.w3.org/2015/08/10-dpub-minutes.html
People with action items:
[16]
http://www.w3.org/mid/4dbb322aec26481ab60b5e307c70a05e@CAR-WNMBP-006.wiley.com
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/10-dpub-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of [18]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 16:20:00 UTC