<ivan> chair: wendy
<wendyreid> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-19-pwg
Wendy: First up, approval of minutes.
<ivan> +1
<ivan> scribe+ simon_collinson
Wendy: Today's meeting is about wrapping up loose ends before TPAC next week. Hope to see many of you there…
RESOLUTION: last week's minutes are accepted
<duga> Garth and Brady joining shortly
Wendy: if you haven't RSVPd yet, please do…
Wendy: Ivan, do you want to review internationalisation?
Ivan: Nothing to say yet - I
don't have an answer from the internationalisation group…
... we should consider it closed and add a note. We've made
changes here and there and had a positive effect.
Charles: As part of APA's personalization work, I'm reviewing it all from that angle. We have a joint meeting during TPAC, so we can discuss any issues then.
Brady: We are private and
secure!
... I've filled out the ping questionnaire. The answers are the
same for privacy and the audiobook manifest. I got a couple of
comments from Benjamin, may not have the correct email for
Deborah
Deborah: Brady does have the right email address, it's on me to reply :)
<duga> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rkVNSAfQMiS72mBzeCa9dceFEh5VsqLdzxxz0Mzvtj8/edit?usp=sharing
Brady: I'll post a link to the
minutes. There's a Google Doc - anyone with the link can
comment.
... Not sure what next steps are - do I give to someone, put it
somewhere?
Ivan: If you look at the issue
list of the repo, there are some issues open for
internationalization…
... we should make some sort of report and mark it up, then
contact the relevant people…
... is there anything that we have to change?
Brady: I don't know if we have a privacy/security section in the manifest?
Ivan: There is one in the editor's draft.
Brady: We should put something other than 'coming soon' in there.
Wendy: I'm already talking to the PING people - if they can spend some time with us next week, so I'll forward this to them.
<ivan> Security and Privacy section in the editor's draft
Ivan: A small flag - Matt has created a section for security and privacy… Wendy has already added something similar for audio (?)
Garth: Can we talk briefly about the TPAC agenda? Everyone has ability to edit but please comment…
Garth: there is the meeting with the Amazon folks, encourage people to dial in for that…
<garth> https://w3.org/TR/audiobooks
<garth> https://w3.org/TR/pub-manifest
Garth: in pre-TPAC mindset, it
would be good if people can spend time with our two drafts
(links posted above)…
... Matt has lost power in Nova Scotia due to the
hurricane…
Avneesh: Agenda is quite full - should we discuss the Community Group and what it has planned?
Wendy: Major question from EPUB3 CG to WG is what happens to EPUB 3 - and we can't answer that yet. It might come up in the business group meeting.
Garth: It might come up, but EPUB 3 is a long topic
Ivan: What you put in as links
are the published documents… I don't know whether we can
republish the two documents officially (?)…
... I don't know whether we need permission to do that…
Garth: Good point. Do we need anything consensus-wise to say 'go ahead and publish' in order to update the documents?
Ivan: This is a good idea - we need consensus
<garth> Proposal publish both our Editors drafts
<garth> +1
<Avneesh> +1
<ivan> Proposed: the WG agree to republish the manifest and the audiobook
<wendyreid> +1
<ivan> +
<ivan> +1
<rkwright> +1
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
Charles: Should I be reviewing the latest draft or the one published on the 27th August?
<George> +1
Garth: Don't review the link above - review the link to come - the current editors' draft
<ivan> Editors' draft: -> Manifest https://w3c.github.io/pub-manifest/ and -> Audiobooks https://w3c.github.io/audiobooks/
Garth: Let's turn it over to Wendy and then Ivan subbing for Matt, to talk about changes to editors' drafts
Wendy: The changes to audiobooks
draft are minor. I haven't done it yet, but will change privacy
and security to match publication manifest. Added a section on
usage of preview…
... so creator can include preview of content in the manifest.
Minor section sorting for readability…
... I also added (this is in publication manifest) abridged
attribute, ie content is abridged or unabridged…
Ivan: There has been quite a lot
of changes to manifest…
... many discussions since just before last publication, lots
of resolutions…
... long-standing discussion about having a canonical manifest
or not…
... based on resolution, the term of 'canonical manifest' has
disappeared…
... what used to be the web id (?) is still there and takes
care of presentation of the manifest…
... the whole processing section has been changed to
display…
... then we had discussion about ??, as a result of that
discussion we had discussion about the language in the manifest
and the content…
... this was previously (in EPUB days) done with dc, we have
cleaned it up…
... quite a lot of editorial changes as well…
... there is a pull request put in yesterday from Marisa on how
to do the alternate – I reviewed this and we had some minor
changes based on that…
... would welcome other people looking at that - it's not yet
in the editors' draft…
... if there's an agreement, it could be part of the editors'
draft. That covers the major changes.
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues
Garth: Is there anything else to discuss before open issues?
All: silence
Garth: Three open issues proposed to close…
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/40
<ivan> Subtopic: issue trimming white space
Garth: Issue 40 - trimming whitespace. Consensus is this is (for both names and values) that we don't want to introduce any new constraint. Trimming not required/done…
<ivan> github-bot, bye
Garth: unless there are objections, since that's been sitting a few days, we should go ahead and close it.
Dave: For everyone's information, EPUB does aggressively trim whitespace on metadata values (only, not for keys since they don't exist)
Garth: There's commentary on keys and values here - schema.org doesn't push us in this direction. Was Dave objecting to closing?
Dave: No.
<ivan> proposed: close issue 40 with no actions
<bigbluehat> +1
<garth> Propose close #40
<dkaplan3> +1
<ivan> +1
<garth> +1
<CharlesL> +1
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
<wendyreid> +1
RESOLUTION: close #40 with no action
<duga> + 1
<mateus> +1
<romain> +1
<George> +1
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/22
<ivan> Subtopic: issue #22 TAG REview
Garth: This one should be easy, since it's lacking content entirely - issue 22. This was a placeholder for TAG review…
<garth> propose: close #22
<ivan> +1
<garth> +1
<dkaplan3> +1
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
<George> +1
<franco> +1
<wendyreid> +1
<CharlesL> +1
Ivan: For the record, there has
been a TAG review separately - not sure why this issue was
opened
... worth mentioning that we are not ignoring TAG review, just
that issue was opened and not followed up…
RESOLUTION: close #22
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/13
Garth: Next is issue 13, about typing for linked resources…
<ivan> Subtopic: typing for linked resources
Garth: that has been without
comments for over six months…
... Dave and Hadrien came towards not adding a typing
requirement. Is that acceptable to you Ivan?
Ivan: It is.
<garth> propose: close #13 with no action (no typeing requirements)
<garth> +1
<wendyreid> +1
<ivan> +1
<dkaplan3> +1
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1
<George> +1
<romain> +1
RESOLUTION: close #13 with no action (no typeing requirements)
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues
Garth: There are ten other
issues. I'd like to request - are there ones that people on the
call have opened and that they'd like to discuss?
... Self-review, there's nothing to talk about. Inviting Marisa
to talk through issue 33.
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/33
Marisa: I submitted a pull request, Ivan reviewed it, a few other people should have a look - Wendy in particular as this affects audiobooks. I don't have anything earth-shattering to announce…
Garth: We don't want to close the issue until the PR is merged.
Marisa: Agreed.
<ivan> corresponding PR
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/51
Ivan: So far, the reading
progression has two possible values, ltr and rtl…
... Laurent raised the possibility of whether we needed top to
bottom or bottom to top…
... I don't know if there's a reasonable example for bottom to
top. I don't know if publications would use this, but we can
add another value there if it makes sense.
Dave: I'm not expressing an opinion about the issue, but I don't think we should make decisions here without drawing diagrams and talking about exactly what we're expecting from user agents.
Ivan: I agree, we should discuss when Laurent is around.
Dave: I'm wary of doing interesting visual things without a whiteboard around.
Ivan: Issue 9…
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/9
Ivan: with the change of having
publication manifest and not web publication, absolutization is
done in the (?) and I wonder if this is something we definitely
have to have…
... in the publication manifest now… should it be up to the
profiles what happens?
Garth: It sounds like you're proposing close with no action?
Ivan: It might be better to wait for Laurent - he had issues with the spec. Let's put that on the agenda for TPAC when Laurent is around.
Garth: Is Daniel on the call to
talk about (?)
... issue 12…?
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/9
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/12
Wendy: I need to read this over before I have any opinions… I think we can save this one for discussion. Maybe Ivan has more info?
Ivan: Related to what I said
before - at the moment we have the publication manifest, where
the base comes from is up to the various profiles…
... it was all about what happens if web content has an iframe,
what is the base URL?
... we haven't solved this issue, but it's not relevant any
more for the manifest…
Garth: Was that a 'leave to TPAC' or 'close now'?
Ivan: Leave to TPAC…
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/16
Garth: We'll have Laurent with us
at TPAC, so that makes sense. One other wasn't postponed, and
hasn't been addressed for some time - issue 16 - to do with
version in the manifest.
... is this obviated or are we still live?
... we didn't get to a satisfying conclusion…
All: silence
Wendy: I do love the aspirational nature of the question
Charles: Looking at this, because
it also goes in line with the accessibility specification, with
the conforms-to suggestion, I like that you can specify the
version number and have all the information right there…
... we have that already as a basis for conformance to the a11y
spec…
... but we're trying to avoid compatibility issues, if we have
a version in the future which requires special handling, if we
don't put it in there now we could be in trouble…
Dave: I hope we can avoid having version numbers on this.
<wendyreid> +1
Dave: it feels like a nightmare
of incompatibility and writing special paths and code
etc.…
... we've managed to avoid it in HTML and CSS, let's really try
not to go there…
Garth: One can also argue that even if we do choose to go there, we don't have to go there at the first try…
Ivan: I agree - if we look back
at the comments; if we want to express conformance with a
version of the specification, (??), there is a comment I made
in Feb which said you can put this kind of information in the
manifest…
... there's a way of using dc terms to do that…
... if this information is necessary in the document, we can do
that with the manifest…
<garth> Propose: close #16 without action (not adding version numbering)
<wendyreid> +1
<ivan> +1
<dauwhe> +1
<garth> +1
Garth: Between Dave, Wendy, and Ben, I'm proposing we close without action
<Nellie> +1
<geoffjukes> +1
<CharlesL> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
<dkaplan3> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: close #16 without action (not adding version numbering)
Ivan: I agree with this, maybe we can ask Matt to put in an example of how this would be provided as an information - if someone were to do that, how they would go about it
Garth: This is with dc terms 'conforms to'?
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/16#issuecomment-464087617 or https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/16#issuecomment-464098251
<garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/16#issuecomment-464098251
Ivan: Yes, conformsTo.
<ivan> acton: mattg to add an informational text on using dcterms
Garth: Action item for Matt, review comment ending in 251
Garth: Is there any other issue
to review on today's call? The metadata one is postponed
... Is there any other business?
... the homework remains, of reviewing the editors' drafts, and
if they get published soon you can review the non-draft
version…
... hopefully a good time and accomplishment-filled time will
be had by all at Fukuoka!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/quest/questionnaire/ Present: ivan wendyreid CharlesL dkaplan3 franco gpellegrino Nellie mateus dauwhe simon_collinson JunGamo Rachel Bill_Kasdorf BenSchroeter Avneesh duga George Garth rkwright bigbluehat romain Regrets: Luc No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: simon_collinson Inferring Scribes: simon_collinson Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Sep/0005.html WARNING: Could not parse date. Unknown month name "09": 2019-09-09 Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004" WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]