W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 01:49:58 +0000
To: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
CC: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Message-ID: <C452E5B6-9E1C-4FDA-B7C1-4ED985D1E21D@adobe.com>
Actually, the big issue that I took away from the minutes is that ivan and I are in agreement that content negotiation (via standard web technique incl. the Accept header) is the proper way for the client & server to decide what to return on the GET from the canonical locator.   Daniel, however, appears (from the minutes) to be promoting a completely different approach.

Daniel, if you can explain why you want to do something different from the standard web/REST model, I’d like to understand.


From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com<mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com>>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes

On 17 Feb 2016, at 23:12, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Leonard, that's quite a bold statement, but I suspect the minutes could do with a few corrections.

My bad if the minutes are inaccurate, please feel free to amend. It was a bit frustrating too: several times I wanted to talk or precise a point but was busy typing.

At any rate, I look forward to the recap from you and Ivan at the next opportunity. PS: it was a small quorum on this concall, but I was under the impression that the participants agreed on the broad lines of your proposal, with only details to clarify.

My impression is that participants generally agreed with the presentation of the issues and some principles. I believe that the main point that is still controversial is really what should be the answer to a GET on the canonical locator.

I think we need to go do this over again next week – which si extremely unfortunate.

If I'm not mistaken Matt, Markus, Tzviya and I won't be able to attend (EDUPUB summit).


Regards, Daniel

On 17 Feb 2016 9:17 p.m., "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
Sorry that I was unable to attend today, especially since the discussion (based on the minutes) seems to completely undo all the work that Ivan, myself and others did on the mailing list during the past week.   The position presented by Daniel is the exact opposite of what Ivan’s musings (adjusted based on mail conversations) presented.

I think we need to go do this over again next week – which si extremely unfortunate.


Fro  "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM
To: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Minutes from today’s meeting: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-dpub-loc-minutes.html

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead

Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 01:50:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:40 UTC