Adam Roach Alice Russo Julian Reschke Paul Hoffman Robert Sparks Tony Hansen Nevil Brownlee Dave Thaler
0. Agenda bash Some input re: Accessibility requirements timelines
Yes, XML is a common format for the industry to create their outputs; arguments were being made to have XML as _the_ “format of record” There are de facto XML DTDs for the industry, including JATS 1.1 DTD “standard”, a parallel standard to the upcoming BITS 1.0 - http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov (Docbook was mentioned, but only in as much as it was mentioned that its main proponent, O'Reilly Press, was moving away from it) - I do not recommend we drop what we have and go to those, but it might be useful to take a quick look to see if there is anything useful in them that would apply to what we're doing
Also, industry is definitely watching EPUB
2. Status on drafts
Concern about changing the name sooner than later, but then we have to remember to tombstone the old draft. HF is assuming these will be IAB docs need to send a note to the IAB about this to get this on the IAB agenda Joe is likely still waiting for feedback from Julian and Paul
It looks like there are still some elements and attributes missing descriptions - does Julian need help with these? Noting that we are holding off on the v3 work pending the completion of the v2 work, and noting that we're trying to take a snapshot of a moving target, so we want to get this done as soon as possible. And as a note on v2, we're planning to announce the formal cutover from v1 to v2 (that means announcing the 6-month clock for the transition) starting January 1 2014.
One of the burning problems is citations - how to represent BCP or write an anchor name when include a reference from somewhere else (these are ongoing unsolved issue)
3. SVG profile Nevil holding the pen on this - posted a question to the list. Discuss. avoiding ambiguity in a figure that might be normative - or is this supposed to be an enhancement for Accessibility?regardless of the tool, you need to validate it with a validator, probably offered by the RFC Editor, and if it doesn't pass validation, you may need to edit it by hand; the validator could have a “allow me to strip” feature, but indicate that hand editing might still be required trying to allow diagrams that will improve diagrams for everyone AND allow for AR technology to review
4. (Added) Accessibility Requirements Attended a webinar and discussed at the seminar, and this is a topic on everyone's mind. Some of the information shared I consider dubious (e.g., differentiating between the “accessible” docs and not by making the “not” harder to find) so I have on my plate some further work to figure out what's required and how that will impact us. In any case, there does seem to be consistent agreement that we only need to focus on accessibility features for one of the publication formats.
5. (Added) Timelines Would like to have XML drafts finished by mid-January, which means getting the v2 stuff done in the next week or two, and giving us a month or so for v3. Would like to have the Publication format requirements draft done by end of January. Will help hold the pen on that. Robert, given what your'e seeing, what else will be needed for an SoW to write code specs?