W3C

Publishing Maintenance Working Group Telco

13 February 2025

Attendees

Present
AvneeshSingh, brady, CharlesL, Dale, dhall5, gpellegrino, Hadrien, ikkwong, ivan, MasakazuKitahara, mgarrish, rickj, shiestyle, SueNeu,toshiakikoike, tzviya
Regrets
george, wendy
Chair
shinya
Scribe
duga

Meeting minutes

<ivan> m2gbot, help

<m2gbot> ivan, I am an IRC bot to link github issues and PRs to the minutes of the meetings where they were discussed.

<m2gbot> ... I am an instance of minutes_to_gh version 0.8.1.

<m2gbot> ... To know more, see pchampin/minutes_to_gh

Overview of the plan for the next few weeks

shiestyle: The ew charter is in

ivan: And we as the leads did some planning the other day
… we know the big things in the charter we need to do (annotations and webtoons)
… we will discuss those are the f2f
… so for the calls until then we will discuss the smaller items in the charter
… For instance, we had some long discussions about WebAssembly and whether we could add it to the spec before, we put some of that off
… so those discussions will keep us busy for now
… We also did some work on the spec structure to prepare
… There will be a new release of 3.3 in March [scribe note: I missed what the changes are, sounds editorial]
… Then we will set up a new 3.4 area of the repo, that will be for new work
… Also chairs call has changed to Wednesday to match the new group meeting

shiestyle: One more thing - the membership was renewed
… So everyone needs to rejoin

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/pm/join

<AvneeshSingh> Does it mean I need to remove everyone in DAISY and join everyone again?

AvneeshSingh: We already seems to be members

ivan: Yes, DAISY is, but all the individual people need to rejoin

duga: I didn't have a join button

ivan: Expected, the process is different for IE
… Everything this is working as expected

dhall5: My AC rep is pinged, I am also dragging in a coworker

w3c/epub-specs#2649 (wasm)

mgarrish: The question was do we allow webassembly?
… it isn't explicitly referenced from the script tag
… we had a discussion around it, I think all we need to do is add a comment that it is ok
… We could add it to the script tag, or just exempt that tag entirely
… Main question is do we want add something to reading systems?
… It will work if they support the API, so not sure what we would need to add

ivan: I think there are no problems, but there was a question around security
… My feeling is it is scripting, and so no, but maybe we should point at the security section

mgarrish: I am not sure what else there is outside of JS
… we should ask our security person

duga: Do we want to explicitly call out webassembly, or just make it vague?

mgarrish: I think we can leave it vague, and use webasssembly as an example

Hadrien: When it comes to webassembly it opens some doors
… but our scripting has always been spotty
… so this pushes the issue further
… the more things like this we add, the more of a balance there is with reading systems. Just something to keep in mind

shiestyle: Can the reading system distinguish between JS and webassembly?

mgarrish: Short of inspecting the file, no, but doesn't need to
… we would have to flag it

duga: No, there isn't really a way of detecting it, but it doesn't really matter

ivan: What is the next step

mgarrish: I think we just need to change the exemption text a little
… real question is the script tag itself

shiestyle: I will ask Voyager for their opinion

shiestyle + toshiakikoike: Discussion in Japanese

MasakazuKitahara: adds to discussion in Japanese

shiestyle: The feeling is there is a risk, and they are not seeing any need for it in Japan

ivan: I am curious what the risk is
… The only thing is adding some speed, so it is not clear what the risk is

shiestyle: Well, the security risk. We already have JS, so maybe there is a little more risk?

ivan: Yes, but we can't block JS, it is already allowed
… so my feeling the only thing this brings is performance

mgarrish: We aren't forcing support, so it is fine to block from a RS perspective.
… It would be very hard to ban this
… it is already going through via an exemption

shiestyle: relaying conversation in Japanese

toshiakikoike: continues in Japanese

shiestyle: toshiakikoike says JS is allowed, so webassembly can be allowed, so they understand
… so they understand, this is just their feeling

Accessibility work to be done in this charter

duga: And I also would add this is already supported per the spec

shiestyle: Moving on
… we have to discuss what the a11y work will be

AvneeshSingh: The broad things are in the charter, there are also new things we are finding as we do the work in the TF
… those things need to be discussed in the wg
… and there are some clarifications we will need to provide
… The question we have is whay wcag 2.0 - why not 2.1 or 2.2?
… We also need to discuss escapeability in Media overlays
… We will also need to consider the new work in annotations
… EAA is coming soon, so we may have feedback there
… So this is the broad direction

shiestyle: The coformance version of wcag is a big change

AvneeshSingh: We will probably need to update for changes, not clear if it will be 1.1, or 1.1.2 or 1.2

CharlesL: There is also webtoons and fixed layout that may impact a11y

ivan: I was wondering about that as well.
… We have the note on FL a11y, I was wondering if there was something from there that could be used

CharlesL: Yes, we are working towards using that information, and we are currently working on techniques for using that
… There could be implications as we go through each item
… and as a side note, Amazon publishing has just sent someone to that task force
… There may by issues with wcag aa, may just be single a

mgarrish: There is also some property that will cause a change to the main spec

Hadrien: Thorium web is coming
… One item we have is a "readability mode" which will be for fixed layout as well
… we extract the structure and text, and provide that as another view
… with full control (text size, etc)
… This could be of interest to lots of people.
… We view the feature as experimental, but it may be a good basis for a11y designs

ivan: Admin comment - a11y was done by a TF with separate meeting times
… is that how it will work going forward?

AvneeshSingh: CG work needs to continue, we can't move that to all to WG
… The meetings are a good way to keep things going
… We will try to meet twice a month, and see how it is working out

admin

shiestyle: For the next call, we will cancel it, so the time is available if any TF wants to meet
… does any TF want to meet?

AvneeshSingh: We don't need the time

duga: Do we even have taskforces yet?

ivan: Not really, there is still work to do

ivan: we need names of people, etc. So we need that from say shiestyle and Hadrien

Hadrien: We have some ideas, do you want an early list

ivan: Give me a first list ASAP

AOB

duga: How many people will attend f2f in person?

ivan: Lots and lots!

shiestyle: Next week is canceled

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 242 (Fri Dec 20 18:32:17 2024 UTC).