Re: "Graffiti" and "Web-Clipper" Annotations

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
> == Requirements ==
> 1) must be able to indicate the location of a user-archived version of a
> webpage
> 2) should allow arbitrary archiving URLs, formats, and protocols (e.g.
> should not require Memento protocol)
>

Both of which are covered by TimeState, via cachedSource.  Unless there is
some protocol that doesn't assign a URI to the archived content, and then
it should be outside of the scope of this work anyway as non-web.

The cachedSource could be a screenshot, and thus should have a format
associated with it.

3) must provide a mechanism for representing and reproducing symbols or
> drawings on the rendered area of a document, with considerations for
> relative positioning of the drawings to the content of the page, to x-y
> scroll position, to zoom level, to rendered dimensions, to viewport, and to
> other relative rendering factors
>

Sounds like SVG as the body of the Annotation?

4) must provide graceful fallback for annotations in UAs that don't support
> drawing or archiving
>

Not sure what this means in practice.



> == Proposals ==
> === Area selector ===
>
> This should be somewhat similar to area selectors for images, but perhaps
> with added characteristics for viewport, dimensions, scroll, and zoom of a
> document. It should indicate that it's a Web page, and not necessarily a
> traditional image, that it's pointing at.
>

Not sure this is in scope for the current work, but there's also already
the ability to associate style with a resource, that could specify location
and anything else via CSS.  So I think that at least the basics of the use
case can already be accommodated.



> `archiving` would satisfy requirements 1 and 2. It's most likely to be
> used on a `target`. The corresponding property value would be the URL of
> the archived version of the document/resource. I think the date of the
> archiving action could be derived from the annotation timestamp, so it
> wouldn't necessarily need its own timestamp, though could be an optional
> addition.
>

The motivation of the annotation is not to archive the page, nor is
archiving a role that the body or target is playing. So -1 to this.



> `drawing` would satisfy requirement 3. I don't know whether it makes the
> most sense as a `target` or a `body`; as a `target` it makes sense because
> it's highlighting specific sections of a document; as a `body` it makes
> sense because it could be additional new content, like handwritten notes or
> symbols. Opinions welcome.
>

We already have highlighting as a motivation.

I'm also not sure about this in general ... what would a client do
differently with the information, as opposed to as if there wasn't a
motivation/role?


Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305