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

Meeting minutes, 2015-10-05

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:28:53 +0200
Message-Id: <7330DFA6-CADB-4306-A985-6527CF16AC33@w3.org>
To: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Meeting minutes are here:

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/05-dpub-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/05-dpub-minutes.html>

with the textual version below


Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704


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

            Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

05 Oct 2015


      [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/ff032a2089a747a1b356c5a803f58360@CAR-WNMBP-006.wiley.com

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/05-dpub-irc


          Dave Cramer, Ivan Herman, Bill Kasdorf, Deborah Kaplan,
          Markus Gylling, Brady Duga, Ben De Meester, Vlad
          Levantovski, Karen Myers

          Peter, Nick, Tzviya, Ayla, Luc, Zheng Xu


          dauwhe, Karen


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]PWP Document status
         2. [6]CSS inline
         3. [7]Extended Description Analysis with PF
         4. [8]TPAC schedules
         5. [9]Next meeting
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 05 October 2015

   <dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe

   <mgylling> [11]http://www.w3.org/2015/09/28-dpub-minutes.html

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2015/09/28-dpub-minutes.html

   mgylling: approval of last week's minutes
   ... any objections?


   scribe: minutes are approved

PWP Document status

   <mgylling> [12]http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/

     [12] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/

   mgylling: topic: PWP Draft Note
   ... our intent is to publish as FPWD as soon as possible
   ... there are few outstanding issues to solve with comments
   from Leonard and Bill
   ... we felt generally that we're good enough for FPWD

   ivan: there was some discussion about relationship to epub
   ... and how we position vis a vis epub
   ... two big changes:
   ... first, that it is "publications" rather than "documents"
   ... second, is that we seemed to get consensus on the states of
   web publications
   ... so there are two sections for terminology


     [13] https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/incorporate-states-in-text/index.html

   ivan: I have an unmerged version
   ... where I adopted this terminology
   ... if we agree I can merge
   ... the third issue is the relationship to epub
   ... a general agreement with Leonard and Bill
   ... I removed references to epub from main text

   <ivan> [14]http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#epub-relations

     [14] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#epub-relations

   ivan: instead a separate section (appendix) at end of document
   where there is explicit reference
   ... I think this is way better and cleaner
   ... this text is taken from previous text and some from Bill
   ... I think these are the main changes
   ... at this moment I don't have any pending issues
   ... unless there are major disagreements with content, I think
   it's way beyond the level of usual FPWD

   <Karen> Dave: I have been getting some pushback on the
   relationship with EPUB in this document

   Dave: first one, does text in an appendix have the same force
   in a W3C doc as it would elsewhere?

   Ivan: Two answers
   ... Question whether it should be a section or an appendix

   …I have no preference

   …This is an IG note

   …not same standing as a WG

   …we always make a distinction if normative or not normative

   …An appendix can be normative

   …it is not part of the main story so to say

   …Take an example

   …If we have a vocabulary that we define in a document

   …it may include the precise OWL specification, so it is

   …I am ok if we say it should be a section

   Dave: That was not a big thing
   ... The last paragraph


   …I wonder if we don't necessarily have to mention EPUB around

   …but wonder if we make this more obvious in the document

   …I feel that some of the back and forth on this has perhaps
   obscured that point

   Markus: hmmm

   Dave: Especially if it's being read by people who are not part
   of the current discussion

   …We first mention HTML in section 3.2 or something

   Ivan: So the real question is

   …which section should that be?

   …I am not against what you say; purely editorial POV trying to
   see where this section would go in the story

   Dave: I don't think I have anything in mind right now; would
   take some time to think of it

   …I think it's a key part of our message

   …We are not talking about throwing away the key OWP stack

   …Some people in the discussion perhaps have tried to frame the
   discussion to other document formats not within the W3C's

   Ivan: What about the following

   …First, I think that the paragraph as it stands now can stay

   …repeating is not a problem

   …What about at end of 4.1 where we define web resource and what
   portable web document is

   …add a note, as a consequence of talking about web resources,
   that consist of HTML blah blah

   Dave: yes, that would be helpful

   Ivan: I will do this today or tomorrow morning

   …Ok to make those changes and send a pointer tomorrow

   …and then you give a green light?

   Dave: yes, that is fine; I don't want to slow down the

   Ivan: that is a fair comment

   Markus: Seems to be the potential scope on clarity that you
   raise, Dave, about what we mean by content

   …is something that would be a really good discussion to have
   during FPWD

   …if Ivan's latest edits suffice, that's good, if not, we can
   still make more changes

   Dave: Some people are concerned about what message is sent even
   at the first public working draft stage

   <dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe

   <Karen> Bill: I have two quick points

   Bill_Kasdorf: the fundamental issue isn't throwing away OWP
   ... but accommodating things outside OWP spec
   ... in the 4.1 definition of web resource
   ... it says who's content can be accessed through network
   ... for example, word docs
   ... which can be accessed but not rendered

   ivan: the statement is clear paragraph that should be put after
   series of definitions

   Bill_Kasdorf: we want to avoid possible misinterpretation

   mgylling: right

   ivan: or maybe even an additional bullet point under web
   publication definition
   ... the resources are primarily
   ... for example, a PWP may include a CVS file
   ... I don't want to make a strong black and white thing
   ... the resources are "primarily" OWP resources like HTML that
   makes it clearer

   Bill_Kasdorf: that would be good

   Karen: what's the desired timeline for publishing the doc and
   letting people know
   ... and building a nice story around that

   mgylling: it seems to me that we want to make a final round
   this week based on feedback today
   ... I don't see decision on this call, but perhaps next week

   ivan: the practical problem is timing
   ... next Tuesday I will be out
   ... if I finish everything the 15th can be pub date
   ... then we get into moratorium
   ... we could still publish on 20th
   ... then I'm unavailable for a while
   ... next week Monday we must make decision if we want this
   published before TPAC

   mgylling: that's Columbus day

   ivan: we can make a decision today, we agree to publish
   providing these changes are made, and there are no objections

   <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to the strategy Ivan just suggested

   ivan: then we can start the process

   <Vlad> Columbus day isn't a widely recognized holiday, most
   companies have a regular business day

   dauwhe: EPUB31 is meeting this week

   mgylling: that wasn't a counterargument?

   ivan: it just means possible objections should be entertained
   until next Monday
   ... before we do that, the group must agree on the short name,
   the stable URI for the doc
   ... at the moment it's PWP
   ... we don't have to have dpub-pwp or just regular pwp

   mgylling: record in the minutes that we're doing a consensus
   call on publishing FPWD on October 15

   ivan: we do preliminary agreement now

   mgylling: let's do preliminary call for consensus on publishing
   on October 15
   ... we have until Monday Oct 12 for comments and objections

   Vlad: Columbus day is not widely recognized holiday
   ... schools are out but that's about it

   Karen: many businesses don't take the holiday

   mgylling: let's meet next week
   ... let's spend this week reviewing Ivan's edits and any other
   final edits
   ... goal is to decide next Monday to publish
   ... are we ready to move on?

   [all] yes!

   mgylling: topic: quick info around CSS inline

   Karen: the second part of my question is what kind of message
   that we hope to see?
   ... what is an appropriate takeaway for publishing this?
   ... shout from rooftops?
   ... Bill McCoy and I communicated about this
   ... what's the big takeaway from this? What's the story?

   mgylling: should we schedule time to go through that next

   Karen: OK. That's fine.
   ... we can deal with it

   <Karen> Dave: Just a comment on the message around the release
   of this document

   <Karen> …be a little careful about

   <Karen> …my AC Rep will have significant opinions about this

   <Karen> Ivan: Maybe you can ask

   <Karen> Dave: I can explicitly ask him for what specific
   messaging to have around this

   <Karen> Ivan: and do we want a press release, a blog, the level
   of noise to have around this

   <Karen> Markus: Le'ts talk about this properly next Monday with
   NIck and Karen; and they will have some additional input then
   as well

CSS inline

   Markus: Tell us about CSS inline

   Dave; The big news is the initial letter shifts in Safari; it
   works in my iphone

   Ivan: And Safari on the desktop?

   Dave: I believe it will; it is in the release notes

   …I believe people who have installed latest version have been
   making MOs

   …Every sign points to that

   …bad news is that it's really buggy, unfortunately


     [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0139.html

   Ivan: you can't get it all

   Dave: someone should have written a few tests

   …we have also published another working draft of the spec

   …and continuing to work on internationalization

   …it's a significantly hard problem with this feature

   …So a) hoping to nail down CJK issues since I'll be surrounded
   by experts

   …at TPAC

   …and reach out to the type setting community since we have
   questions about that

   Markus: Cool; anything you need from the IG in terms of CSS

   Dave: I think the useful thing is good technical knowledge of
   other scripts

   …especially Hebrew, Arabic and Indic scripts

   …If anyone knows about Arabic I would love to talk to you

   Markus: Might want to repeat that question on the list for
   those who are not here today

   Dave: I think we are going to write up a questionnaires on the


   …Maybe broadcast through group if initial attempts fail

   Markus: no one on queue; congratulations, Dave and good luck
   with the rest of the work

   …any additional comments?

   Karen: you mentioned this is in safari. Any other browsers?

   <Karen> Dave: I don't have any…I know Blink has mentioned there
   is a higher level feature that they are not interested in

   <Karen> …they have no problems implementing if other browsers
   do it

   mgylling: several meaty topics left

   <Karen> Dave: No other particular news

Extended Description Analysis with PF


     [16] http://www.w3.org/2015/08/extended-description-analysis.html

   mgylling: the link to the table that M. Cooper of PF has been

   mgylling: we had a lot of activity around this a while ago
   ... but work is not done
   ... Michael and rest of folks in PF have asked for input on
   ... Tzviya sent an email about this


     [17] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Oct/0011.html

   mgylling: about what kind of input he wants
   ... wherever there are question marks, input is requested
   ... or empty cells
   ... so we should be doing work to properly analyze this
   ... this was on agenda of a11y call last fri

   dkaplan3: it was on agenda
   ... the grid is very good but there are clarifications we want
   ... some things are hard to read
   ... a couple of rows where we're not convinced it's a
   meaningful requirement
   ... we're putting together some feedback over the next two
   ... to have ready before TPAC

   mgylling: will feedback be circulated?

   dkaplan3: if group is interested.

   ivan: I am interested

   mgylling: please circulate through list for review

   dkaplan3: feedback from the wider group is welcome in any form

   mgylling: what does this mean in terms of time
   ... we can do PWP consensus next week, talk about outreach
   ... we could have dedicated session to look at your stuff

   dkaplan3: I don't think we'll be ready
   ... charles is still on holiday
   ... Tzviya has been away

   mgylling: the train has left the station in terms of getting
   this done
   ... unless there are comments on table, next event will be
   draft reply from dkaplan3
   ... questions?
   ... let's move on
   ... TPAC sessions
   ... I missed the planning call
   ... I know that outreach has begun

TPAC sessions

   ivan: I don't know about timing
   ... session wish list


     [18] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Oct_2015_F2F_Logistics_and_Details#Schedule

   ivan: Tzviya sent out feelers to all of those
   ... from Webapps, which is relevant for service workers and
   also for packaging
   ... strange situation
   ... better talk to TAG,
   ... Webapp meeting is Mon-Tue, as most won't be around for our
   ... chair of webapps has sent mail to his own group asking for
   review about service workers, and whether some of them can talk
   to us


     [19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Oct/0017.html

   ivan: she has talked to PF, CSS...
   ... don't know what the dates are
   ... annotations update
   ... maybe some of us should go to annotations meeting
   ... identifiers are scary
   ... that's a topic for Bill
   ... Daniel was happy on doing a session on POM
   ... a11y is for Deborah and Charles
   ... having a meeting with HTML doesn't make much sense
   ... these are the external group meetings

   mgylling: identifiers is an internal discussion

   ivan: yes
   ... Bill_Kasdorf, can you dial in?


   dauwhe: EPUB31 has an alternative to web manifest spec

   mgylling: we could talk about that ourselves
   ... it may be a bit early

   ivan: I think there's more that's worth doing
   ... in epub31 there are subgroups
   ... the main points are set
   ... some of them are very internal to IDPF like reorg of
   ... but others are relevant to this IG
   ... giving a list of those, and what the issues are is relevant
   ... like serialization

   mgylling: I think I know what input we would get ;)
   ... that's one internal session idea
   ... are there others who want to suggest things?

   ivan: we can do it when you are back from NYC
   ... who intends to dial in and when?

Next meeting

   mgylling: maybe we should edit participants table to allow
   registration as virtual participant
   ... the final item was should we meet on Columbus day?
   ... yes
   ... I think we are done for today
   ... Ivan will be pushing edits on the PWP draft
   ... and Dave will talk to "stakeholders" to gather feedback
   ... so we will feel good about the doc next Monday
   ... thanks to Dave and Karen for scribing

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015/10/05 16:23:52 $

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

Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 16:29:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:14 UTC