Meeting minutes
wendyreid: @ivan noticed that we have 44 outstanding issues, we have closed 2, so let's take a look at some of the older ones
Issue #428 - w3c/epub-specs#428
wendyreid:
… this issues is about media overlays and the pause class
… this was deferred. No work hasn't been done since an earlier discussion
duga: The media pause makes sense, on a previous project we wished we had it. I'm not sure there is still a desire for it
… but we should pause this if there are no implementers interested in it
… can we pause this since there is no community interest?
wendyreid: we have already marked this issue deferred
… so keeping the issue open isn't helping anyone
… perhaps we could close the issue and open a new one if an implementer wants it in the future
AvneeshSingh: perhaps we can give notice and then close the issue in two weeks if there is no response
gautierchomel: this may run into complications with reading systems allowing users to specify styles
… I think we should make a note of this and then close the issue
wendyreid: I like AvneeshSingh approach, add a comment like "speak now" or we will close it
shiestyle: We can simply close this and see if there is any reaction
wendyreid: The problem with just closing it is that it might be overlooked since the issue is so old
… we have over 2500 issues in our repository, most of which are closed
*wendyreid added a comment to #428 asking for comments before closing the issues
Issue #2216 - w3c/epub-specs#2216
<wendyreid> w3c/
wendyreid: Issue 2216 this is concerning language we use to describe creators may be a little to narrow
mgarrish: I think people are not confused about the difference between "must" and "epub creators must set it"
… we don't really have the time to rewrite all of the specifications when the issue was raised
… how much time will this take vs the benefits it will bring
duga: I agree with mgarrish, I don't think anyone will notice and this change won't improve any ebooks
… at the same time, the language is wrong, and it bugs me
… we don't care if the creator adds the metadata, we just want to be sure it is there
… but on the other hand, no one has ever gotten this wrong
gautierchomel: I see confusion about who is the "creator" when I am doing trainings.
… I would like to see that addressed
… I think it would be worth the work
AvneeshSingh: can we do this in EPUB 3.4 or not?
wendyreid: or can we do this in Accessibiliy 1.2
AvneeshSingh: can we take this on in the time frame we have?
wendyreid: we haven't seen confusion in the past, but we may see it in the future
… we spend a lot of time with the spec, but most people rely on the tools or the trainings
… as long as those are clear, is this really required
mgarrish: the problem hasn't been in how we word things
… the definition of "epub creator" is more the problem
… maybe there is a compromise in looking at that definition rather than rewriting all the specifications
duga: You just made a good case for rewriting it
… we've spent years trying to define "creator"
… maybe we should try to get rid of it
… but because of the timeline, maybe we just defer this again until epub accessibility 1.3
mgarrish: maybe we start with the accessibility specs and see how much is involved
… then if it is too complex we can dump out of it
wendyreid: I like that approach. Try in the accessibility document first
… to see how hard it is to make the change
… see how useful it is in 1.2 and abandon it if it is too hard
mgarrish: I don't mind taking a stab at this and seeing how it goes
Issue #2508 - w3c/epub-specs#2508
wendyreid: we talked about this before 3.3 was published
… it didn't make sense to put it into 3.3 in a rush
… mostly it was about datasets that could be used in scripts
… should we close this? Epub check already has notifications for this
mgarrish: we added the ability for things to travel in the container without being in the manifest
… EPUB check does flag this if they appear to not being used
… I don't think anyone has complained about unused issues being flagged in EPUB check
<rdeltour> I confirm, no feedback related to that received in EPUBCheck
mgarrish: Perhaps we could close it off and wait until there is a complaing
gautierchomel: for demonstration I had an EPUB with a resource linked in the metadata
… and that's when it happened to me
… but this is an edge case
duga: I think cleaning up people's unused files is beyond the scope of the spec
… I bet most publishers send EPUBs with unused fonts
… we could write something that finds those and it would save us lots of file size
<rdeltour> for the record, the current behavior in EPUBCheck was implemented and described in that PR: w3c/
duga: I don't see the utility for this
Dale: Is there a use case for something that needs to be there and is not referenced?
wendyreid: the case gautierchomel brought up is probably the most common
… so the certifier report may need to be hidden from the reader
mgarrish: one use case is a dataset that travels with a scientific publication that may be needed by the user
rdeltour: in anycase epub check cannot verify a resource that is used as a script
… if we add this rule it cannot be enforced by epub check
duga: I propose we close the issue
wendreid: yes, let's close it until someone comes to us with a clear use case and a proposal for fixing it, this looks like a black hole
… is anyone opposed to closing it?
wendyreid: I will close the issue since no one is objecting
Issue #2641 - w3c/epub-specs#2641
wendyreid: this is opened by someone running into inconsistency in footnotes among browsers
… I don't think there is anything we can do spec-wise to fix this
… but we have talked about writing and testing best practices for footnotes and similar
<duga> +1
wendyreid: I'd like to close this in favor of our other issue to write something about this
<SueNeu> +1
<Dale> +1
<mgarrish> +1
<shiestyle> +1
wendyreid: alright
… we're closing it
Issue #2664 - w3c/epub-specs#2664
wendreid: we don't have playorder officially from documents since we got rid of the NCX
… playorder is inferred from the spine
duga: I assumed this was to put play order inside elements within the document?
wendreid: are they talking about reading order within the HTML itself, that comes from the DOM
mgarrish: without George here we aren't sure
gautierchomel: maybe we can tag it with fixed layout
… in my experience in training, we have never had a problem with at fixed layout reading order
… it is doable for now
… let's tag it for fxl and discuss it in the fxl a11y context
wendyreid: yes, let's do that
gautierchomel: if you have two html files, and the title is part on one page, and part on the other, you may need to do this
… but it can be achieved with code now
mgarrish: this sounds like rendition mapping
… he wants to move from fxl to something else
… which is a huge issue we've never solved
… and he wants a new mechanism for moving around within content
wendyreid: I'll leave this alone until we can talk to George
… are there any more things to discuss
gautierchomel: some of the issue topics can be pushed into discussion
wendyreid: we didn't consider that, we didn't have that option in Github before
… we have used issues for everything. Now that we do have discussions as an option
… we could explore this
… we could set up guidelines about when to set up a discussion and when to open an issue
AvneeshSingh: multiple channels of communication can be trouble
… we already have internal reading list, public reading list
SueNeu: What is the functional difference between a discussion and an issue in GH that makes discussions a better idea?
wendyreid: discussions are designed to be a bit more like talking to people
… the accessibility group uses them, responses can be threaded
… one of the problems can be hard to follow comments when they overlap
… it makes for a better flow of discussions
mgarrish: the threaded replies don't always work the way they are intended
… we would want some guidance for people about when to open discussions and how to respond
… if you don't have a specific problem you want addressed in the spec it makes sense to set up a discussion even if the discussion threading isn't perfect
wendyreid: I'll do some research on GH about discussions
… this might be more geared toward opensource projects
… there is some merit giving people space to ask a question that isn't a direct issue
AOB
wendyreid: is there anything else people wanted to talk about?
https://
wendyreid: please register for Tpac if you are attending remotely or in person
… we will be putting our agenda together soon
… fyi there is a fee for remote participation, $90 US except for invited experts
If for whatever reason that doesn't work for you, you can apply for a fee waver
… it is usually a simple process
<duga> https://
duga: we have a spreadsheet of people who are planning to attend
… if you post here people will know that you are coming