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

Re: Notes about the Web App manifest document

From: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:34:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CADMjS0bmcztEPs26UHq2yqALZhkMd5ALRhG2n1rKOBFN3MfvKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Ivan, my bad I didn't notice that Leonard was quoting you in his email and
thus when you were disagreeing with his detailed suggestion  you obviously
didn't have to clarify that you agreed with the higher-level point... since
it was yours. That's what I get for dropping in midway on a long thread,
sorry.

--Bill

P.S. I do still have a quibble about the broad/vague definition of "Web
Publication" in the current PWP manifesto, that probably corresponds to a
broad/vague definition of "Web App" by that group... I think some of the
issue is that both efforts are really trying to solve broader problems but
yet may feel that they have  "rope" only to solve problems for a narrower
set of use cases leading among other things to unclear terminology.


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> just a quick note from my below. TL;DR: We actually don't disagree...
>
> ---
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>
> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
>
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2016, at 18:00, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
>
> Well, not to set precedent by agreeing with Leonard ;-) but Ivan I think
> you missed part of his point (with which I do agree): we should have a more
> general "Web Manifest" which could then be specialized as necessary for
> "Web Apps" and "Web Publications", not trying to build on something already
> specialized for "Apps".
>
>
> Isn't it what I said? In any case that was my intention to say: the
> problem I see with the current manifest document is that it is a Web App
> Manifest instead of a generic manifest that can be "subclassed" to a Web
> App or a Web Publication manifest.
>
> Ivan
>
> That seems worthwhile independently of debates about e.g. JSON (I do agree
> with you on this and since EPUB already is ZIP-based as is almost
> everything else under the sun I am not offended by the idea of evolving
> towards a universal Web packaging that is ZIP+JSON rather than ZIP+XML).
>
> But back to Leonard's higher-level point: I still think with PWP we are a
> bit too liberal about what we mean by "Web Publication" [1] at least as
> regards the current scope of the IG. I could take this definition as
> inclusive of for example a casual game written in JavaScript (so all its
> essential functionality is there and it is usable offline). But of course
> the Web Apps folks would consider that an "App", as they should. And the
> Holy Grail that PWP seeks to solve (Web content that is seamlessly usable
> online and offline and whether its constituent resources are packaged or
> distributed) applies equally well to such apps (albeit not client-server
> apps) as well as other types of content that might be argued to be beyond
> the scope of our charter (such as videos). I think it's great if PWP solves
> bigger problems that help OWP overall but let's call a spade a spade - if
> we are solving the online/offline packaged/distributed seamlessness for web
> content in general then it is  just "Web" not "Web Publications" or "Web
> Apps".
>
> And if we want a more crisp definition of what is really a "Publication"
> that sits fully within the scope of the current IG charter and participants
> (and I think we do) my candidate is that a publication is any Web content
> that has a defined order for its essential content and provides
> discoverable navigation into it. That is to me what makes EPUB EPUB, not
> the details of *how* those things are defined in EPUB 3. And doing so could
> be as simple as saying any Web content that designates a <nav> element that
> provides these things qualifies as a "Publication".
>
> --Bill
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#pwp_definition
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 29 May 2016, at 18:27, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe we can agree in some sort of a 'core' set of term for a Web
>> Manifest (and not Web *App* Manifest), which can then be adapted for
>> different constituencies
>> >>
>> > Not just for constituencies but also potentially for grammars and/or
>> serializations.  The plan to use JSON vs XML vs. ??? is still before us,
>>
>> Well… I have the impression that this boat has sailed, but that is my
>> personal impression. The Web Community has voted with its feet, so to say,
>> to move away from XML towards JSON. That may become HJSON, or some other
>> evolution of JSON, but the direction is quite clear. What we heard from
>> Chaals is the probably move of the Web App/Browser community is to towards
>> a ZIP+JSON manifest combination when it comes to packaging.
>>
>>
>> > yet figure out what we need in there in terms of concepts and values
>> would be worthwhile regardless of the serialization.
>> >
>> > I also like the separation of core terms from publication terms – and
>> possibly even specific publication terms (eg. “Edupub”).
>> >
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> > Leonard
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/29/16, 4:43 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> On 27 May 2016, at 20:54, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
>> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Ivan,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for getting this started.
>> >>>
>> >>> What I was envisioning for PWP is something along the lines of
>> exploiting the Navigation Scope [1]. This would mean, that, like an app, a
>> PWP is a defined set of "scope members" [2]. Scope members have many of the
>> same features that we've been discussing for PWP - identity, location, type
>> - and I'm hoping that this can be a launch point for discussion of a
>> customized/customizable equivalent to epub's spine or manifest.
>> >>
>> >> I agree. This is certainly one of the items in the manifest doc that
>> we can re-use and keep compatibility. Display mode[1] is another area, for
>> example.
>> >>
>> >> However, my problem with the document is more general. Chaals referred
>> to this manifest doc as, possibly, the basis for some sort of a
>> Zip+manifest packaging approach that browsers may favor. However, it is not
>> clear in the document whether, to be a bona fide manifest, it MUST contain
>> all the terms defined in this document (with possibly more via the
>> extension point) or not. And, if not, is there a subset of the terms that
>> is required or is it a completely open set. Because if everything that is
>> in the document is required, then we may run into a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can agree in some sort of a 'core' set of term for a Web
>> Manifest (and not Web *App* Manifest), which can then be adapted for
>> different constituencies, like Apps or publications, then we would be in a
>> much better place imho.
>> >>
>> >> Ivan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#the-display-mode-media-feature
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> We will have to figure out what to do about all the information, such
>> as installation.
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#navigation-scope
>> >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#member-scope
>> >>>
>> >>> Tzviya Siegman
>> >>> Information Standards Lead
>> >>> Wiley
>> >>> 201-748-6884
>> >>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:24 AM
>> >>> To: W3C Digital Publishing IG
>> >>> Subject: Notes about the Web App manifest document
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> As some sort of a followup from the discussion we had with Chaals… I
>> have looked at the Web App Manifest doc (
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/) to see whether it could work for us
>> as a basis for the manifest in PWP. These are just my (slightly
>> unstructured) notes.
>> >>>
>> >>> The document defines a JSON structure/set of terms, and some
>> processing steps to find and consume those manifests. This general approach
>> is identical to what we considered as PWP (or BFM…) manifests, and that is
>> the reason why considering the specification for our purposes is actually
>> important. It includes a number of terms that may be very relevant (e.g.,
>> I18N consideration for manifest members like title and descriptions, the
>> concept of display mode which may have a direct relevance for PWP, the
>> concept of a scope, that may define a ‘subset’ of possible URIs to identify
>> PWP resources). It also defines an extension mechanism, i.e., it is
>> possible to define application specific terms (“members”, as they are
>> referred to in the spec), i.e., it is possible to include anything we want
>> for PWP.
>> >>>
>> >>> However: the Web App Manifest is, well, Web **App** Manifest. It is
>> geared at Web Applications as far as many of the chosen set of terms are
>> concerned. Its main goal is to define terms needed for the download and
>> installation of Web Applications, i.e., active entities. Although, with a
>> bit of a stretch of imagination, one could consider a PWP an active entity
>> in case the PWP Processor is a downloadable application for that specific
>> content, I am not sure this is the prevalent view. Ie, a PWP is a “passive”
>> thing (regardless of whether it has internal javascript based
>> interactivity) that is downloaded as a set of resources by a general
>> processor. What this means is that the current Web App Manifest contains a
>> bunch of irrelevant terms     (related application, start url, icons,
>> platform).
>> >>>
>> >>> There are also terms that, though may look relevant, would probably
>> more appropriate in a CSS file or some other files within the PWP (eg,
>> theme color). The processing/linking is simpler than what we discussed: the
>> only source of a manifest is what can be accessed via a <link> element in
>> HTML, there is no provision for HTTP Return Link Header, or embedded JSON
>> content within an HTML file.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure where to go from here. My ideal would be to have a
>> “general” manifest file that would include whatever is generally useful or
>> necessary, a (slightly more general) way of finding a manifest, general
>> processing steps (which are part of the document) and then some clearer
>> extension points/facilities for specific application areas, like Web Apps
>> or PWP.
>> >>>
>> >>> Feedbacks? Ideally, we should have some discussion in the IG, ending
>> a more solid, and common view that we could put in as an issue/comment to
>> the current document. With the hope that, via some joint work, we can get
>> somewhere…
>> >>>
>> >>> WDYT?
>> >>>
>> >>> Ivan
>> >>>
>> >>> ----
>> >>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> >>> Digital Publishing Lead
>> >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> >>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----
>> >> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> >> Digital Publishing Lead
>> >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> >> mobile: +31-641044153
>> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Bill McCoy
> Executive Director
> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
> email: bmccoy@idpf.org
> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
>
>


-- 

Bill McCoy
Executive Director
International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
email: bmccoy@idpf.org
mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 17:35:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:43 UTC