W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: [Admin] PWP vs. WP design (was Re: Identifying a book on the Web today)

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:05:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CALvn5ECnfmbFWbKSCuYQy0VYp4MsGH+VbOQmtu_FiaaQU1+dow@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
I would like to raise some issues around this paragraph
in the PWP note.

>A Web Publication may be packaged (and become a PWP —
>Packaged Web Publication) by having some or all of its constituent
>resources combined into a single file. The package must include
>the unique identifier of the manifestation. The act of packaging
>must be reversible; one must be able to recover the original
>structure and organization. In particular, relative URLs within
>the publication must not be altered. References relative to
>a publication should remain stable. We consider the
>unpackaged state of a web publication to be canonical.

Should such issues be raised in the PWP repository or WP repository?

Regards,
Makoto


2017-08-06 13:16 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:

>
> On 5 Aug 2017, at 23:44, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>
> Ivan and Laurent,
>
> I raised some github issues.
>
> Ivan, thank you for your clarification.  Indeed, there will be a lot of
> open issues in the First Public Working Drafts.
>
> I have been concerned that the manifest format (and the predecessor, BFF)
> would be finished without having a big picture for the unification of the
> Web world and the EPUB world.  If the WP and PWP FPWDs do not provide
> details of the manifest format, I am happy with your scenario.
>
>
> They may contain but they are not final, and may change if other issues
> come up.
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
> 2017-08-04 22:08 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>
>> (Changed the subject line a bit)
>>
>> Makoto,
>>
>>
>> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:00, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Laurent,
>>
>> I am responding one of your comments.
>>
>> I thought that we agreed to tackle the WP spec and then the PWP spec, but
>> I did not think that we are going to ignore PWP during the design of WP.
>>
>>
>> at the moment, the goal is to produce First Public Working Drafts. These
>> are _not_ final specifications, very far from it; these are mostly outlines
>> for the main areas, stakes in the ground, so to say, with possibly
>> (probably) lots of open issues. Some of those sections may have more
>> technical  content, some of them may not. We also agreed that we would
>> consider the main outlines of WP first and then PWP. This does not mean
>> _finalizing_ anything before the other.
>>
>> To touch upon Laurent's other comment: I believe it is way better to
>> record open specific issues in github, rather than having disparate email
>> discussions. We may or may not discuss the issues right now, but by virtue
>> of being explicitly raised we can be sure that, eventually, those question
>> will be dealt with. Your latest question about multiple URL-s on the same
>> resource is a typical example for this.
>>
>> I hope this helps
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My
>> interpretation may well be incorrect.  But I think that finishing WP
>> without
>> considering PWP will lead to the separation of the Web world and the EPUB
>> world.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>>
>> 2017-08-04 19:42 GMT+09:00 Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>:
>>
>>> Dear Makoto,
>>>
>>> From my remote island, I will have three comments:
>>> - The title of this thread (Identifying a book on the Web today) and the
>>> issue of URLs for resources embedded in a PWP are not related, which makes
>>> following threads (and searching in threads in the future) rather hard.
>>> - we agreed to tackle issues with PWPs after WPs are clear. Your issue
>>> definitely seems to be related with PWPs.
>>> - I still don't see why *all* discussions have moved from github to
>>> emails. The expected split btw generic and specific discussions, envisaged
>>> by Tzviya initially if I recall well, does not work in practice IMHO.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Laurent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 4 août 2017 à 12:05, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-08-04 18:37 GMT+09:00 Hadrien Gardeur <
>>> hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>:
>>>
>>>> For PWP the situation is a little bit more complex because the package
>>>>> may be 'elsewhere', ie, not on the Web but, if we regard (which I think is
>>>>> the case) a PWP some sort of a frozen version of a WP through some
>>>>> packaging, then the internal structure of a PWP would 100% reflect its
>>>>> 'exploded' WP ancestry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line: I do not see the problem. But that may only be me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For a PWP that has a WP ancestry, this is fairly easy to handle and we
>>>> can simply references all resources using their URL, no matter the context
>>>> (packaged or not).
>>>> For PWP with no prior WP ancestry, this might be more difficult, but I
>>>> don't think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not think so.  I think that this issue is extremely important for
>>> the unification of EPUB and the Web.  To me, details of manifests
>>> are much less important.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Makoto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>
>> Makoto
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>


-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 07:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:49:06 UTC