W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > June 2015

[Minutes] 2015-06-01 Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:27:58 +0200
Message-ID: <556C880E.60509@w3.org>
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 2015-06-01 are now available at


These public minutes are also linked from the dpub wiki

Also find these minutes in a text version following, for your convenience.


Thierry Michel



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                       Digital Publishing IG Telco

01 Jun 2015



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-dpub-irc


           Ivan Herman (Ivan), Thierry Michel (tmichel), Dave
           Cramer (dauwhe), Ben De Meester (bjdmeest), Bert Bos
           (Bert), Jeff Xu (zhengxu), Charles LaPierre (clapierre),
           Tzviya Siegman (Tzviya), Mike Miller (MikeMiller),
           Brady Duga (duga), Alan Stearns (astearns), Kawakubo
           (kwkbtr), Laura Dawson (LDawson), Phil Madans (philm).


           Paul Belfanti, Ayla Stein, David Stroup, Bill Kkasdorf,
           Nick Ruffilo.


           Dave Cramer (dauwhe)


      * [4]Topics
      * [5]Summary of Action Items

    <ivan> Date: 2015-05-01

    Really interesting discussion of packaging in the
    public-web-perf ML. One highlight:


    <tmichel> The audio is really bad. can't understand anything

    <tmichel> +Thierry Michel

    <ivan> Present Laura_Dawson

    <ivan> Present_ Phil_Madans

    <ivan> Pressent+ Phil_Madans

    <tzviya> for call in information, see

       [7] http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/WebEx

    <ivan> Pressent+ Bert

    <HeatherF> YOu can see who is making noise on WebEx by looking
    at the "Speaking" bar in the top right

    <scribe> scribenick: dauwhe

    <tzviya> chair: tzviya

    <HeatherF> Also, if the host mutes a person, that person cannot
    unmute themselves. They'll need to ask via chat.

    all: gnashing of teeth around audio issues

    tzviya: first we will approve minutes

    <tzviya> [8]http://www.w3.org/2015/05/17-dpub-minutes.html

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2015/05/17-dpub-minutes.html

    tzviya: minutes from last phone call
    ... any comments?


    scribe: minutes are approved
    ... thanks to Ivan for summarizing F2F and doing tons of other

    <tzviya> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-dpub-minutes.html

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-dpub-minutes.html

    scribe: any comments on F2F minutes?


    <HeatherF> Yay for scribes!

    scribe: we will stipulate that all have read the minutes.
    ... minutes are approved.
    ... next item is recap of F2F, so let's take a look at Ivan's


      [10] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/6d1eb70a7eb2ba2a067e

    <ivan> sumary fo f2f:


    scribe: we had an excellent F2F
    ... we have lots of work ahead
    ... [1] Packaging
    ... we need to define core requirements, and decide if we need
    ... [2] identifiers, and laying out requirements
    ... [3] pagination, and relationship to CSSWG and Houdini. Dave
    will be talking to CSSWG
    ... [4] a11y. Defining goals of task force, working on docs
    ... serving as liason with other publishing groups like BISG
    ... [5] Education outreach
    ... people don't know what we do now
    ... we have blog, slides, etc
    ... [6] rechartering
    ... and the future of this group over next two years
    ... any comments?

       [1] http://www.w3.org/
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-dpub-irc


    Karen_: thanks to IDPF board members for attending, and Diane
    Kennedy from IDEAliance

    tzviya: it was good to have a diverse group

    laudrain: reading the summary, i was wondering about education
    ... did you speak about edupub?

    tzviya: we talked about educating the publishing community, not
    about edupub as a topic
    ... Ivan, Markus, and Ralph discussed rechartering on Friday

    <ivan> [12]https://github.com/w3c/dpub-charter/issues

      [12] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-charter/issues

    ivan: I collected the various items on what we decided
    ... and put up as series of issues on github


      [13] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-charter/labels/DPUB%20IG%20comments

    ivan: 1 issue is to make it clear that the new group is not
    completely new
    ... we must follow up on work already started
    ... the other thing is possible misunderstanding on epubweb
    ... and there were conflicting misunderstandings
    ... some voices seemed to understand this is a profile of epub
    like edupub is a profile of epub; this is not true
    ... others were afraid that it's throwing epub 3.01 out of the
    window; this is not true
    ... this is also not restricted to books, also includes
    journals and magazines; this is true :)
    ... what is a possible alternative name for epubweb?
    ... we did not find a consensus, as all possible names have
    ... and we could easily descend into css-style bikeshedding
    ... we could call the whole thing EPUB+WEB
    ... (emphasis on "+")
    ... may be temporary, but I don't have anything better
    ... there are stylistic issues
    ... Heather pointed us to an IETF draft on packaging
    ... it's not an alternative to w3c spec, but rather having a
    top-level name for package, then package/epub etc

    <HeatherF> [14]http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/arcmedia/charter/

      [14] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/arcmedia/charter/

    ivan: this shows that whole issue of packaging is interesting,
    and lots of people are thinking of it
    ... that's what happened on the charter
    ... I'm busy changing the charter, you can see it on new branch
    on github
    ... the biggest problem is the deliverables and milestones
    ... i hope a new draft will be available on Tuesday or
    ... and I really really really really really really want
    ... tzviya, did I forget anything?

    tzviya: I'd cut down on number of issues, and focus on big
    ones, like packaging, identifiers, pagination
    ... not everything we work on will be in charter, as they fall
    under bigger issues
    ... we'll have milestones and even deadlines

    current draft

      [15] https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-charter/post-f2f/index.html

    ivan: this is the current draft
    ... Does HeatherF have any comment on IETF work?

    <pkra> take the red pill.

    HeatherF: the arcmedia group is still mostly getting started, a
    good time to get engaged
    ... the next ietf meeting is July in Prague; most work is done
    on mailing lists

    ivan: will you be there?

    HeatherF: Yes

    ivan: that will be interesting!

    tzviya: I wanted to stress is that this the point where we
    decide what we're doing for the next two years
    ... this is the soul-searching moment
    ... speak now!
    ... or else.

    [mysterious beep]

    <HeatherF> I haven't had a chance to review the latest text,
    but I have it on my list for this week.



    tzviya: We need to start to put together functional
    requirements for various things
    ... I wrote up some functional requirements for packaging,
    dauwhe added a few comments
    ... [reading from requirements]

    ivan: I don't understand "multiple methods of navigation"

    tzviya: in addition to trad toc, we need a list of tables, etc
    ... might not be part of packaging, or something you build out
    of ARIA

    HeatherF: with regards to no file size limitations, I thought
    we decided the operating systems may be the problem
    ... so I'm not sure if we can do anything

    brady_duga: at the end of the day it's nice to say there's no
    file size limits
    ... i've seen 600k CSS files, but we handle it slowly
    ... we can't handle arbitrarily large content, in practice
    there will be limits
    ... in terms of zip, reading systems must support zip 64
    ... if you give me a book larger than zip64 limit, I refuse to
    ... so I don't thing there's a serious limit in epub today

    tzviya: how would you modify the file size comment

    brady_duga: saying there's no limit is impossible because
    ... a really huge limit is fine
    ... any limit we set today will be meaningless in five years

    tzviya: does that work for you

    HeatherF: I'm sad we can't just say, "Don't be stupid!"

    <HeatherF> :-)

    tzviya: anything else, brady?

    ivan: there's a minor thing
    ... maybe we want to add possibility of heirarchy
    ... you already do this in edupub

    tzviya: I'll add this

    ivan: the other thing is more complicated



    ivan: I sent an email a few hours ago, early in the U.S.
    ... we have a separate issue in fragmentation, but the problem
    is interrelated
    ... [fragment IDs, unrelated to layout]
    ... problem is with online vs offline

    <tzviya> email discussion:


    ivan: if there's no packaging, some of these issues disappear,
    says brady_duga
    ... so first question is, do we need a package at all?
    ... we had part of that question last week
    ... we had some consensus about needing a package
    ... we need differentiation between publication as package and
    on web
    ... there are deep issues here

    tzviya: I've been in meetings all morning, but haven't read the
    email chain
    ... I think it needs to be a long discussion
    ... for purpose of requirements
    ... a package is necessary; I tried to capture it in first item
    ... I can break that into two items

    [uncomfortable silence]

    Jeff_Xu: First time for me at this meeting
    ... I have question about file size limitation
    ... even if OS can allow large package
    ... how to download package efficiently, is that in the scope
    of our requirements

    tzviya: I don't think we want to talk about specific component
    size limits
    ... things like that change over time
    ... if we say a video can only be 1g today
    ... in a few years the limit may be higher
    ... we're all in agreement that file size should not be

    Jeff_Xu: even with size limitations now, can be changed in
    ... do we want to provide protocol to download large packaage

    brady_duga: I'm on queue for different reasons

    tzviya: if anyone has opinions on what we should be telling
    systems about downloading then please stand up

    brady_duga: other than best practices docs, there's not
    anything we tell people today

    Jeff_Xu: maybe it's not in scope
    ... when we download audio book or comic book it's really large
    ... can be really slow
    ... or maybe some other group should talk about this

    brady_duga: this is covered by streamable and random access

    Jeff_Xu: yes

    tzviya: OK

    brady_duga: do we need a packaging format? in some sense the
    answer is yes
    ... we have one today
    ... the question is, other than for portablility
    ... do I need a package if I'm not transferrring between people
    ... if I'm a reading system, I don't think we need a packaging
    ... we don't need random access if we're just transferring
    things betweeen people
    ... but the reading system does need to support random access,
    but that could happen with expanded files
    ... my real comment is, do we need a packaging format for
    anything other than transferring between entities?

    tzviya: more important for identity? So I can point to
    something in ten years. Maybe it's about archiving

    ivan: the whole idea, conceptually, of this epub+web story, is
    that the two cases you refer to
    ... I have book downloaded vs I have book on web
    ... there should be no difference between these two situations
    ... if book is completely online, then I agree for that purpose
    you don't need packaging
    ... in the sense of a zip or tar on a disk
    ... distinguish between physical packaging and logical entitiy
    ... the logical entity is a colleciton of files which together
    make a publication
    ... a "virtual package"
    ... we need to have a URI
    ... the discussion I started is around that
    ... I would like to see a URI for the package, and for each of
    the constituents, whether the package is virtual or not
    ... and I'm not sure what that is
    ... how that translates into the requirements, I'm not sure

    brady_duga: the idea of this uri that's the same for server vs
    download, not sure how that works
    ... are you envisioning the uris are the same?

    ivan: the identification will be the same

    brady_duga: in one case I have authority in my url, in one I

    ivan: [crickets] :)
    ... not sure what is possible
    ... if one chapter refers to another, it should not be a
    problem with relative URIs
    ... if I use annotations, and I want them to work online and
    offline, not sure how to solve that
    ... what URI do I use for annotation?

    brady_duga: your first example is not in requirements
    ... on the 2nd case, I don't know how you solve that either

    tzviya: let's make that a requirement, even though I tried not
    to make the impossible a requirement

    brady_duga: this is already handled by OCF, require everything
    to be relative URLs

    [discussion of exact language of new requirement]

    <brady_duga> Sorry, my call dropped

    tzviya: links remain stable whether publication is online or
    ... this seems more of an identifier requirement
    ... but they are linked

    TimCole: it's part of the annotation problem
    ... do we envision that a package can be served at multiple
    ... get chapter 1 from server A, get chapter 2 from server B
    ... in which case the relative URIs get very complex

    tzviya: I did add this as functional requirement



    tzviya: it's good there's a heated discussion
    ... please take a look at the doc
    ... the goal is to get a list together in the next few weeks

    dauwhe: will post interesting links from public-web-perf
    mailing list on their review of packaging

    tzviya: anything for next week?
    ... might be education or outreach or identifiers

    Heather: I think identifiers

    tzviya: we have four minutes
    ... any last comments?


    tzviya: thanks everyone


    <HeatherF> *LOL*

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
     1.140 ([21]CVS log)
     $Date: 2015/06/01 16:23:02 $

      [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [21] 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 [22]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/taht/that/
Succeeded: s/HeatherL/HeatherF/
Succeeded: s/like/like that/
Succeeded: s/I"m/I'm/
Succeeded: s/???/Heather/
Found ScribeNick: dauwhe
Inferring Scribes: dauwhe

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: ivan_Herman Dave_Cramer Jeff_Xu Charles Michael_Miller TzviyaSi
egman duga Bert astearns bjdmeest kwkbtr
Agenda: [23]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015M
WARNING: Could not parse date.  Unknown month name "05": 2015-05-01
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Jun 2015
Guessing minutes URL: [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-dpub-minutes.html
People with action items:

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-dpub-minutes.html

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

    [End of [25]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 16:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:02 UTC