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: W3C <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 09:08:53 +0200
To: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Message-ID: <1c06740e-dbb3-49cc-a08b-3b0fc667c9e4@Spark>
Makoto,

that note is closed and was edited and created by the Digital Publishing Interest Group. The note is an input to this Working Group, but that does not mean that anything in there will necessarily be taken over by the Working group unchanged. We have not yet have any discussion on the PWP in general, and this type of definition in particular, in the Working Group.

You can record an issue in the repository where that note was maintained[1] to be sure that the issue remains recorded. In view of above, I guess that would be the best option. (Actually, I have added a “Note for the WG” label to that issue list for possible future reference.)

I hope this helps

Ivan

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/issues

---
Ivan Herman
World Wide Web Consortium
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
ORCID: 0000-0003-0782-2704


On 6 Aug 2017, 09:06 +0200, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, wrote:
> 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
> > > > > > 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
> > > 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 07:18:54 UTC

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