See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 October 2015
<dauwhe> scribenick: dauwhe
<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/2015/09/28-dpub-minutes.html
mgylling: approval of last week's minutes
... any objections?
[silence]
scribe: minutes are approved
<mgylling> 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
<ivan> 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> 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 normative
…I am ok if we say it should be a section
Dave: That was not a big thing
... The last paragraph
…[quotes]
…I wonder if we don't necessarily have to mention EPUB around this
…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 purview
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 machinery
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 spec
... but accommodating things outside OWP spec
... in the 4.1 definition of web resource
... it says who's content can be accessed through network protocols
... 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 Monday?
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
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
<mgylling> 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 inline
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 lanagues
s/languages
…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 implementing
<Karen> …they have no problems implementing if other browsers do it
mgylling: several meaty topics left
<Karen> Dave: No other particular news
<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/extended-description-analysis.html
mgylling: the link to the table that M. Cooper of PF has been building
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 completing
... Tzviya sent an email about this
<mgylling> 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 weeks
... 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
ivan: I don't know about timing
... session wish list
<mgylling> 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 meeting
... 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
<mgylling> 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?
[silence]
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 documentation
... 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?
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