We currently have several references to the wpub spec, especially when we introduce the entry page.

Now that the Publication Manifest goes forward but the Web Publication is "retained", we have to make reference to pub-manifest for publication.json.

I don't see any harm keeping a reference to the wpub note for index.html, as LPF will be a note (if we follow the current consensus), as is wpub.

Any view on this?

There are 2 remaining normative references, even if all sections now have an "informative" class.
They should logically come from the new Conformance section.

As I mentioned on the call, some explanation of "lightweight" would help to avoid any general confusion. At least as I understand the rationale for it, you might just add a paragraph like the following to start the intro:

"The Lightweight Packaging Format provides a means of packaging digital publication profiles of the Web Publication specification. This format is based on the [OCF] format widely used in publishing to package EPUB publications, but in a more lightweight way - it removes many of the cumbersome rules and restrictions imposed by that format to make packaging and processing simpler."

The form [[zip]] in the spec links to the PKWARE note. I think this is a reference configurerd by the W3C.
I could be good to have also a reference to https://www.iso.org/standard/60101.html, even if this spec cannot be read freely

Where is that informative reference coming from? I don't see anything in the spec.

Since we just went through this with pub-manifest, it's probably better to move the terminology out of the intro. The intro paras can then be marked informative.

The spec states "Contents within the Package MUST reference these resources via relative-URL strings [url].".
A relative-URL string cannot contain a fragment identifier.

On the other side the EPUB 3.3 OCF specification states that "Files within the OCF Abstract Container MUST reference each other via relative-URL-with-fragment strings."

See relative-URL-with-fragment strings

We should certainly allow fragment ids in relative URLs. To be validated.

Warning: A relative-URL string can be a path-absolute-URL string. We need to define how path absolute URLs are dereferenced. Same problem as in EPUB 3.3.

At the moment, all references are on the wpub document. I believe all of them should be on the pub-manifest document now, but it may require some more checks.

It is a specification, so having a section 2 called "specification" is redundant. Let the subsections stand on their own.

There was a resolution to remove this at Fukuoka:
https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-09-16-pwg#section1

https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/conformance

I am bit concerned by the generic naming of the format. "Lightweight Packaging Format" does not make it clear that it is specifically meant to package Web Publications.
Also the wording in the note that limits the LPF to only package Web Publications is problematic since we will need to package other types of resources as well such as Web Annotations, Synchronized Media etc.

There is a reference to the editors' draft (under 'Published specification'). That should be https://www.w3.org/TR/lpf

After publication, we'll have to register the media type application/lpf+zip to IANA.