Meeting minutes
WebToons
Wendy Reid: Change of plan, let's discuss publishing
… we wanted to be on a six month schedule
… do we want to do webtoons later
Ivan Herman: There's an advice or request in the process to not publish more often than six months
… if we publish now without webtoons, we might need to wait another 6 months to incorporate that
… there's nothing urgent to publish now
… everything is relatively harmless
… webtoons is the most complex and relevant thing
… we can wait until we finally say yea or nay on the webtoon changes
Matt Garrish: We don't have anything critical, we have one class three already, if we need to do that approval we might as well wait for webtoons
… I don't know if it affects for just core or RS
… do we need to publish all together, or one doc at a time
Shinya Takami: We might need to discuss webtoons, it could take a while
… to resolve the topic
… I have a proposal, to regulate the restriction on rendition:flow
… we can add a note on this restriction not just for webtoons
Ivan Herman: Just to answer Matt, my personal preference would be to take the 3 recs together
… it's a unit in three documents
… keeping them aligned is better message-wise
Wendy Reid: To Matt, it's a change to both, to Shinya, it might not take as long
Ivan Herman: For class 3 we go to a AC review
… same way as CR, we must have tests, and implementations to back up the test
… it's important to have the feedback we need, if it won't pass the testing phase we shouldn't do it
Laurent Le Meur: +1 Ivan Herman, it's not only allowing rendition:flow for FXL, it's also specifying in reading systems when two images should be placed one after another, in HTML, they won't be naturally put border on border
… it's a need for specific implementations in RS
… it's an important modification
… not just one line in the spec
<Ivan Herman> +1 to Laurent Le Meur
Shinya Takami: In 3.3, rendition:flow can be used in FXL and reflow, only in RS is it forbidden
… maybe we need another test, we already allow the use in the package, we may not need a new test
Wendy Reid: We need to look at the existing tests, and the language, we're usually not that strict with language
Ivan Herman: I don't have the test suite in my head
… even if we have a test with rendition:flow
… then the test today should say it's not allowed
… either we don't have a test, or we have a test where we need to change the criteria
… long term, we need the feedback of an engineer
… feedback on implementation, how it went
… noting that for the CR lines, we would need a test suite that meets the criteria
… we need 2 implementations
Laurent Le Meur: Just to add, even if reading systems on FXL support scrolled-continuous, they will put the pages one below the other
… most of the reading systems will add margins
… the RS will have followed the riles
… but the user experience will be poor
… we need further further specification
… it's complex
Wendy Reid: We're working on a lot of assumptions, let's look at what is currently there.
Shinya Takami: I wonder if we change the restriction in reading systems, RS don't have to implement the ???
… reading systems don't have to implement the feature
Laurent Le Meur: I'm not saying if it was allowed that RS must do it, but they would not pass the tes
… the systems not implementing would look bad
… most RS would do it correctly in regards to the spec, not what webtoons are
Matt Garrish: I was just going to say we're spinning our wheels, we need to know the specifics
… FXL is generally SHOULDs, if we get into MUST that is tricky
… we need to get what is further into what is needed
… let's focus on getting this specced out, then build the tests.
Ivan Herman: Someone should come up with a PR
… knowing it's a class 3 change
… changes marked up in the text
Wendy Reid: I'll take a crack at it
Matt Garrish: Might be better to get the text finalized then do the formal diff
<Ivan Herman> +1 to Wendy Reid
ISO
Ivan Herman: Just to add more info, we will have a call, Gregorio, Cristina Mussinelli, and I, with the EU Commission in a week
… to put an end to the discussion on if we publish through ISO does it jeopardize the acceptance of our docs in the EU
… we'll make a presentation to them
… hopefully this issue will be resolved by the end of the year
… we'll know for sure if ISO is a yes or no
… the other problem is that W3C and JTC1 have discussed the practical details of the PAS process
… up until last year, my information was, the PAS process was simple, the documents themselves stay as W3C docuemtns
… HTML format with the styling
… only thing we'd need to produce is a cover letter of sorts
… referring to the W3C documents
… this means we don't have a lot of editorial work
… the latest round says, JTC1 requires us to turn the documents to ISO format
… convert to MS Word, change the styling and layout
… change some of the language
… huge amount of editorial work
… I don't know if it's required or not
… at the moment there are discussions, we're not the guinea pigs, since WAI has published WCAG 2.2
… previous versions had an ISO stamp, now they want to push WCAG 2.2 to ISO
… WCAG 2.2 is more complex than EPUB, maybe JTC1 will come back on their requirements
… it's an unknown
… I just expressed our unhappiness about this, hopefully WCAG paves the way for us
Yong-SangCho: Question, does JTC1 emphasize document format is the most important issue?
Ivan Herman: I was not at the discussion, I saw a presentation on PAS in general, no discussion with ISO on EPUB specifically
… there may be some other issues, I'm waiting to see if the formatting problem is there or a non-issue
Yong-SangCho: JTC1 and ISO have the same document directives
… part 2 has normative guidance on writing standards
… in case of editing, I have experience in converting EPUB to Korean National Standard
… its a heavy effort, maybe I can volunteer or people from my group can support this conversion
… aside from formatting, are there other issues in the procedure?
… if there are, I can volunteer to communicate
… we'd like to keep the technical side in balance
… want to keep EPUB an international standard
… we'd like to adopt it as is if we can
Ivan Herman: First of all, thank you, Matt and I, and the other editors, I have not tried to do the conversion before
… I have edited an ISO standard, but it was a while ago
… there's a terminology review that is more worrisome than word formatting
… make sure meanings are the same
… I think the PAS process means we enter a late stage of the process in ISO
… PAS process also includes original documents would be the same
… W3C docs are free, ISO are paid
Yong-SangCho: Since W3C docs are available for free, the same content on ISO is also freely available
Ivan Herman: That's good news
… for the timing, we need to wait on the other problem
… from our POV, that's the major challenge
… we should also begin the process after we get the class 3 changes through, we should use that version
Yong-SangCho: If we have any concerns you want to check with JTC1, please let me know, I can check and communicate, I'll do my best to keep the original content
Tzviya Siegman: I don't know Yong-Sang if you know, what about EPUB for archiving?
… any ideas on how we can coordinate our work with them, they're using an old version
Yong-SangCho: It's just standing on preliminary work items, not yet a formal standard, there's a lot of comments referencing the latest version
… EPUB Archiving, not sure, we didn't decide the format, there's lots of other document types, we haven't decided yet which document type is appropriate for it
… it should reference EPUB 3.3
Tzviya Siegman: It should reference the latest W3C version, not ISO?
Yong-SangCho: Since there's no ISO standard, they can point to W3C's standards
… EPUB 3.3 need to be in the bibliography, not normative references
… since it's outside ISO right now
… that's my understanding
… we need to discuss more details
Ivan Herman: If EPUB 3.3 gets to ISO
… it would probably become an ISO standard before archiving
Yong-SangCho: It'll be at least 36 months, + 3 or 6 months
… if EPUB 3.3 gets through PAS track, if EPUB Archive is released after
Ivan Herman: then the archive will refer to the latest ISO spec, which would be 3.3
Yong-SangCho: We'd like to share the latest update on EPUB/A
… it's not isolated or a different specification, it's based on EPUB
… we'll share the latest when it's ready
Shinya Takami: Thanks for coming today Yong-Sang, question about Korean ebook industry
… does it want to bring EPUB 3.3 to ISO, is there a problem if it doesn't?
Yong-SangCho: The industry is flexible, its been operating with what is the latest, but the public sector, the government, will only adapt to ISO
… textbooks and such. Public sector has stronger regulations
… needs to use Korean Standards or international standards
… industry is favoured to taking international standards, since the standards are clearer, more consistent
… software follows regulations
Avneesh Singh: Comment on EPUB Archive, I'm concerned about two international standards, it seems confusing
… my recommendation would be that EPUB 3.3 is the international standard, and EPUB Archive is a technical specification
… more clarity
Yong-SangCho: I'll deliver your comment to the lead, we don't want to be trouble makers
Misc
Gregorio Pellegrino: Just to tell you that we are updating the note with the mapping
… in view of the meeting we're having with the commission, I'll post a PR over the weekend
… having you all double check the changes would be helpful
… if we can approve the mapping, and publish an updated version that would be great
Gregorio Pellegrino: Does it need a vote to be updated?
Wendy Reid: Is it published to TR?
Ivan Herman: If we follow the procedure, it will autopublished via echidna
… if there is enough reviewers, we can merge and it will update TR
… not as formal
Matt Garrish: We've not had formal calls on notes
… we've tried to make sure everyone is on board
… even just sending an email to make sure everyone sees it
Wendy Reid: We'll make sure there are approvals on the PR
Gregorio Pellegrino: I'll post the PR and we can proceed from there.
Wendy Reid: AOB?