> A web publication of Moby-Dick may have 136 separate HTML files, but it's still a single web publication, and a single logical work. I don't believe this statement implies otherwise.
Yes, that was the intent. As I mentioned to Luc, making clear the connectedness of the documents would further help differentiate a publication from a random set of documents. Their being connected in no way implies packaging, as having bounds doesn't necessitate packaging.
Matt
From: Dave Cramer [mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com]
Sent: July 26, 2017 6:03 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>; Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>; Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>; Greg Albers <GAlbers@getty.edu>; public-publ-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote:
> bound together through a manifest into a single logical work
>
That says packaged! And, IMO, we need to be VERY CLEAR for WP that we are *not* talking about packaging. If nothing else, get rid of the “into a single logical work”.
I think this just expresses the notion that a web publication represents a single conceptual work, and that the abstract manifest serves to unite the components in a logical sense. I don't see this implying that a web publication is a single web resource or file.
A web publication of Moby-Dick may have 136 separate HTML files, but it's still a single web publication, and a single logical work. I don't believe this statement implies otherwise.
Dave