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

Re: [dpub] PWP-UCR merges and questions

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:23:28 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <36239699-A15C-42C4-BDBE-33E6A52A85C2@adobe.com>
No, Ivan, that is not correct.

The identification use case (which is covered in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) is completely different than the manifest and links case.   The identification case is about the PWP itself (aka the “single unit”), whether packaged or not.  The manifest/links section is about working with constituent resources (2.2.7) of the PWP when packaged.

Leonard

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [dpub] PWP-UCR merges and questions


On 28 Oct 2016, at 15:35, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:

Thanks for merging these as well as providing the PR #’s.

A few comments.

Pagination:
On the issue of maintaining the original page numbers – since we are focused only on the publication format, is this something that you are expecting to be part of the PWP itself?   And is it really a mandatory requirement (must) or a strong recommendation (should)?

Manifests & Links
That change needs to be reverted as the new text is not the same requirement as the originals.   The original talks about the ability to actually map (or redirect) from one URL to another, while the new one talks of identification.  Completely different things.

But isn't it correct that the identification of a part of a publication across all 'states' (to use an outdated word:-) is the _real_ use case and requirement? The mapping/redirection is a tool to achieve that, isn't it?

Ivan




Security
Section 4.2 is important because it discusses some specific use cases in the context of PWP in which a UA might not allow a publication to work as the publisher/author originally intended because its capabilities have been restricted. So while I agree that this is “in support of the horizontal dependency of security”, I think it is important to call these out for folks who may expect this.

Section 4.3 is the opposite of 4.2.  Where 4.2 is about a UA restricting a publication’s usage of the OWP, 4.3 is about how a publication could become “trusted” and thus allow more capabilities than it might normally.  This is basically the PWP equivalent of HTTPS and “trusted sites”.

So yes, we need both. If people have specific wording improvements – definitely happy to consider them.

Leonard

From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:54 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] PWP-UCR merges and questions
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM

Hi All,

I merged several PRs to PWP-UCR

Ivan’s proposed changes [1], which included Heather’s reorg, data inclusion, the accessibility table, and a general editorial review

The A11y TF’s rewording of Pagination section to avoid confusion around the multiple uses of the word “pagination” [2] and proposed changes to section 2.1.1 “Alternative Modalities” [3]

I proposed new language for Manifests and Links [4] because it was a little hard to discern intent. Please review so we can merge.

I also have some questions for the group to discuss:

1.       Section 3.1<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/index.html#distro-vers> “Distribution and Versioning”: We had discussed using a word other than Versioning, because versioning carries a lot and different meanings for the Web and Publishing worlds. Please provide suggestions.
2.       Section 4.2<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/index.html#limiting_features> “Limiting a Web Publication's Features” and Section 4.3<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/index.html#escalating_trust> “Escalating Trust”: Upon re-reading this, please clarify what these use cases and requirements provide that the section on Horizontal Dependencies does not provide. I believe that we have successfully made a case outlining Accessibility use cases that are less than clearly defined in the Web world. Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with security issues, but these security examples are rather fuzzy to me, and I think we need to better define them.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/151

[2] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/152

[3] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/153

[4] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/154


Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>



----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 14:24:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:46 UTC